1 2025:CGHC:14437-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1576 of 2025 Shourya Enterprises Through Its Proprietor, Shri Hrishabh Soni, S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Soni, Aged About 38 Years, Occupation Business, Hanumant Business Tower, Vishal Nagar, Beside C.G Hotel, Raipur 492001, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Samagra Shiksha Through Its Managing Director, State Project, Office Of Samagra Shiksha, Department Of School Education, 2nd Floor, Cgbse Building, Pension Bada, Tagore Nagar, Raipur 492001 3 - Khandelwal Sales Corporation Through Its Authorised Signatory, Shri Sunil Kumar Khandelwal, Gole Bazar, M.Wd 22, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hans Raj Scientific Metal Works Through Its Authorised Signatory, Shri Anil Kumar Bhola, Flat No. 3669, Ambala, Cantt, Kali Bari Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana 5 - Goyal Furniture Through Its Authorised Signatory, Shri Amit Drolia, Kapil Complex, Gurunank Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 6 - Ganpati Enterprises Through Its Authorised Signatory, Shri Vineet Drolia, 3-A Kapil Complex, M.G. Road, Gurunank Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.26 18:39:41 +0530 2 7 - Government E-Market Through Its Authorised Signatory, 2nd Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Sansad Marg, Near Patel Chowk, New Delhi 110001 ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Anand Bernard and Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocates For Respondents /State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat , Advocate General with Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Anand Bernard and Mr. Ashish Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to call for the entire record; 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the decision dated 4.3.2025 at 5:39 PM of the respondent no.2 whereby the petitioner's bid has been held to be technically disqualified; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the decision of the respondent no.2 holding the bid of respondent no.3 is L1; 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to hold and direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to accept the bid of the petitioner as technically valid and then open the financial bid submitted by the petitioner; 10.5 Alternatively, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire tender for supply of sports kit for high and higher secondary school (GEM/2025/B/5955257) as the same has not been conducted in a fair and transparent manner rendering the tender process to be illegal and void. 10.6 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” 3. About half an hour precious Court’s time has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and he has filed present petition along with voluminous documents in two volumes, but while giving reply by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State/respondents to the argument of learned counsel for the 4 petitioner, it has been pointed out that complete NIT in question, which was issued, has not been annexed and the work orders have already been issued in favour of L-1 and L-2. 4. We are very pained that the manner in which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who has challenged the rejection of his technical bid without annexing the complete NIT in question, goes to show that the petition has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in a very casual manner and further wasted the precious time of the Court, as such, in the opinion of this Court, the petition is defective one, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the instant petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition annexing copy of the complete NIT in question. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh petition annexing complete NIT in question, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court and submit a receipt of the same at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any, and the amount so deposited, if any, shall be transmitted to the Government Home for Mentally Underdeveloped Children, Mana Camp, District - Raipur (C.G.). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra