1 2025:CGHC:13519-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1504 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Mishra S/o Late Nandram Mishra Aged About 62 Years R/o Link Road Janjgir, Ward No. 17, Post Office Janjgir, Subdistrict Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - General Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Seeds Manager Chhattisgarh Beej Prakriya Kendra, Lakhanpur, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4 - Kavita Jain W/o Mahavir Jain R/o Medical Store 322, Main Road Korba, Ward No. 4, Korba Town, Distt. Korba, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21. 03.2025 1. Heard, Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 to 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226 of Constitution of India against rejection of the financial bid of the petitioner and declaring the Respondent No. 4 as L-1 and also for revocation of the tender dated 16.01.2025 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “i. Quash/Set aside the Financial Bid Comparison (Annexure P/5), whereby the respondent no. 1 to 3 have declared the respondent no. 4 as L1 and Revoke the tender S. No./HO/BKVN/Tender/2024-25/9657 dated 16/1/2025-allotted to the respondent no. 4 for Process Center Lakhanpur. ii. Direct the respondents (1, 2, and 3) to allot the tender S. No../HO/BKVN/Tender/2024-25/9657 dated 16/1/2025 of Process Center Lakhanpur to the petitioner. iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the fact and circumstar ces of the case and in the interest of justice. The cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 to 3 have issued a Notice Inviting Tender (in short “NIT”) on 16/01/2025 for transportation of the seeds and other packing materials bearing S. No. /HO/BKVN/ Tender/ 2024- 25/9657 dated 16.01.2025. There was a condition in Clause 2.10 of the said NIT with respect to the availability of the heavy vehicle (Truck) with the bidders which is as follows:- 10- chtks ds ifjogu gsrq fufonkdkj ds ikl Lo;a dk U;wure 8 Vu {kerk ls vf/kd ds 2 Hkkjh okgu, ¼Vz~d½ gksuk pkfg,] lacaf/kr dsUnzksa }kjk vko’;drk iM+us ij NksVh xkfM+;ksa ¼03 ls 05 Vu½ dks ifjogu gsrq 01 okgu miyC/k djk;k tkuk vfuok;Z gSaA uohu okgu dh fLFkfr esa okgu dz; ls lacaf/kr izek.kd fufonk esa Hkkx ysrs le; viyksM djuk gksxkA vuqca/k ds le; mDr okguksa 3 ¼u,] iqjkus½ ds jftLVz~s’ku uEcj ,oa oS| ba’;ksjsal ,oa fQVusl vkfn dh izfr izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gSA 4. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 have submitted their bid in the said tender but the bid of the petitioner is rejected whereas the bid of the Respondent No. 4 was accepted on 11.03.2025 and the respondent No. 4 was declared as L-1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the eligibility conditions mentioned in Clause 3 of NIT that the bidder who have possessed on his own at least two heavy vehicle (Truck) having minimum load capacity of 8 tones and the vehicle particular including fitness certificate, tax payment receipt and insurance should also have been directed to be uploaded along with the bid. The respondent No. 4 had submitted the vehicle particulars along with bid which clearly reveals that his articulated vehicle and body type shows as multi axcel trailer. The details of both the vehicles as submitted by the respondent No. 4 does not fulfill the requisite qualification of the NIT and he was disqualified to participate in the tender process. Whereas the petitioner have valued the requisite qualifications of the conditions of the NIT and he being the L-2, entitled for allotment of the tender as the respondent No. 4 is ineligible therefore, the interference of this Court is required and relief may be granted to the petitioner as prayed by him. 6. On the other hand Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 appear on advance copy would submit that there is no disqualification of the respondent No. 4 in participating the tender process. In the tender condition, the minimum capacity of the heavy vehicle was mentioned, however, the type of vehicle which the respondent No. 4 was possessed is having more load capacity and it is not the condition in the NIT that the person who is having more efficient vehicle would not be participated in the tender or would be disqualified. The nature of vehicle as Truck or Trailer would hardly makes any difference and 4 the minimum requirement is having two heavy vehicles having more than 8 tones load capacity, therefore, merely on the ground that the vehicle possessed by the respondent No. 4 comes under the type of multiaxial trailer, he cannot be disqualified on that ground alone. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. From perusal of Clause 2.10 of the NIT, it is quite vivid that the bidder should have possessed minimum two heavy vehicles (Truck) having load capacity of more than 8 tones when the respondent No. 4 have submitted that they are in possession of multiaxial trailer having more than 8 tones of load capacity, in the opinion of this Court, they cannot be disqualified on that ground alone. There is hardly any difference in the word truck and trailer, both are the types of heavy vehicles, having load capacity of more than 8 tones and well within the requirement of the respondent/ department under the NIT. 9. From perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material annexed with the petition, we do not find any good ground which warrants interference of this Court in the matter, particularly in such type of dispute under the NIT. 10. Consequently, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.28 09:41:10 +0530