1 2025:CGHC:22061-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2289 of 2025 1 - Arnav Projects And Infratech Through Its Authorized Signatory, Ashoke Roy, S/o Late K.R. Roy, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Vasundhara Vihar, L - 4, S - 7 Godhanpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer (Tender Cell) Office Of The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Basin, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - M/s Maa Harisiddhi Infra Developers Pvt.Ltd. Office At L K Cooperate Tower Limited S -6 And S - 7, 2nd Floor, Block E, Nh 30, New Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.05.15 13:33:23 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Dy. AG for the State. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the rejection letter/e-mail dated 28/03/2025 (Annexure P-3) as arbitrary and illegal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner in the tender bearing system nos. 164001 on merits. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to decare that FDR issued by a nationalized bank is a valid mode of EMD under Clause 2.6 of the tender document. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other orders as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied in the OnLine tender process floated by respondent No.3 i.e. Tender Bearing System No. 164001 on 08/01/2025 for the project namely Baijnathpur (B) Tank Scheme. On due scrutiny of the document 3 submitted by the petitioner, vide e-mail dated 28/03/2025, it was communicated to the petitioner that he had been disqualified due to incorrect EMD as per clause 2.6 of the tender document. He would submit that in fact the petitioner submitted the requisite FDR towards EMD issued by the Punjab National Bank and despite the said fact, the petitioner has been disqualified in an illegal and arbitrary manner only on a ground that instead of the bank draft, the petitioner submitted the FDR. Learned counsel would submit that in the previous tenders nos. 69559 and 69560, EMD was accepted in the form of FDR issued by Punjab National Bank, Abmikapur under the same clause. Therefore, the action of disqualifying the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes-of- law. 4. At this juncture, learned appearing for State would oppose the aforesaid submission made by the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner ought to have fulfill the terms and conditions of the tender documents and any deviation from the same, the tender documents cannot be accepted. In clause 2.6 of the tender document, it has categorically been mentioned that the candidate is required to submit the bank draft whereas the petitioner submitted the FDR and hence, the petitioner has rightly been disqualified. The impugned action on the part of the respondent authenticates is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 4 6. It would be apt to quote clause 2.6 of the tender document for adjudication of the present dispute, which is quoted below: “2.6 The intending Tenderers from other States may remit the Earnest money in the form of Bank Draft of the State Bank of India or any other Scheduled Bank or online through NEFT/RFTS to the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION, SURAJPUR (C.G.).” 7. From bare perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is quite vivid that the intending tenders from other States may remit the earnest money in the form of of Bank Draft of the State Bank of India or any other Scheduled Bank or online through NEFT/RFTS. 8. On going through the record, it is evident that the petitioner’s firm belong to the State of Jharkhand, which is evident from the earlier Work Order dated 10/02/2022 issued in its favour (page 69 of the Writ Petition). The petitioner ought to have submitted the bank draft as per the clause 2.6 of the tender documents, whereas he has submitted the FDR. Therefore, the authorities have rightly disqualified the petitioner. 9. As an upshot, the Writ Petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 10. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Rahul