1 2025:CGHC:18078-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1965 of 2025 Anal Gurudiwan S/o Manoj Kumar Gurudiwan Aged About 32 Years R/o Songanga Colony, P.O. Secl, P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495006. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Tribal Welfare And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Raipur. 2 - Collector District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Collectorate Campus Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493332. 3 - Assistant Commissioner Department Of Tribal Welfare And Development Department In The Office Of The Collector, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Collectorate, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Collectorate Campus Baloda Bazar Bhatapara,chhattisgarh - 493332. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Swain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.24 12:52:22 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to retender the works which had been valued above 10 lakhs through e-tender and e- procurement. 2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to pay the cost of the case and 3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court feels deem and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the Tender invitation are contradictory in view of the fact that though it was mentioned that the invitation is as per the latest correction in the order of the PWD order but in fact the correction in tender valued above 10 lakh to be e-tender was not followed. The entire tender was not published in the notice Board and was published on 26.3.2025 which was also the last date of the sale of the tender paper, it seems that the authorities have sold the paper only to their favorites' and conspired to 3 restrict the open and honest participation. The instant Petitioner who is a qualified contractor is deprived of his right to participate in the tender since the tender was not e-tendered as per the Rule. The system of e- tendering and e-procurement of documents was introduced keeping in view the nuisance created by the local miscreants at the time of submission of the tender such as snatching the tender papers, forcibly not allowing the contractors to submit their tender etc. There is unlawful consideration between the authorities and the local contractors, the detail tender was also not published in the Notice Board and signing part of the tender was not made available to the petitioner as well to others, so that the matter could not be moved to the Court. 5. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General submits that tender in question should have been invited through e-tendering, but the same could not be done, thus the tender in question has been cancelled yesterday itself and the grievance of the petitioner no more survives. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned Advocate General appearing for respondent / State and considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the tender in question has already been cancelled, the present petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet