1 2025:CGHC:21242-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2327 of 2025 Enviro Infra Engineers Limited Having Its Registered Office At 201, 2nd Floor, R.G. Metro Arcade, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi - 110085 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Saket Kumar. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Office At 4rth D Block Indravati Bhavan Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Durg Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissiner Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - M/s. V.A. Tech Wabag Limited Having Its Office At International Trade Tower, 516-520, 5th, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocates For Respondent No.1 / State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.05 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 / Municipal Corporation, Durg. 2 The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs : “1) That the Hon'ble Court may kind enough to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification/communication dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected. 2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kind enough to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents Municipal Corporation Durg directing to consider the bid of the petitioner for financial evaluation and if found L-1/lowest bidder direct the Respondent authorities to issue LOI in favour of the Petitioner. 3) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents Municipal Corporation Durg floated Notice 3 Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 1241 on 13.03.2025 for construction, testing, commissioning of all master plans including Operation and Maintenance. As per the NIT, the bid initial start date was 13.03.2025 and bid due date was 28.03.2025 however, the same was extended 3 times. Initially, the last date for submission of physical documents was 31.03.2025. The bid opening date which was originally scheduled on 01.04.2025 was subsequently extended 3 times till 17.04.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner submitted its online bid on 16.04.2025 along with all the requisite and required documents as per terms and conditions of the NIT which is evident from the screenshot of the online portal of the respondent. The petitioner also submitted its bid documents physically, through India Post Office consignment number EC370371324IN, as required under the NIT on 16.04.2025. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive a communication / notification on 24.04.2025 on the email id as well as on mobile number of the Managing Director of the Company regarding rejection of bid. In response to the aforesaid notification, the petitioner immediately on 24.04.2025 & 25.04.2025 submitted its representation to respondent Municipal Corporation Durg and protest against the rejection of its bid and specifically clarify that the petitioner has already submitted MOUs for PQ documents of technology provider (SBR & SOLAR) and in support of its claim, but, the respondent authorities without considering the protest and representations have opened the price bid on 26.04.2025 in a 4 hasteful manner and has declared the private respondent as L-1 Bidder rejecting the bid of all remaining five bidders including the petitioner citing some or the other non-existent filmsy grounds. 4 On the other hand, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 / Municipal Corporation, Durg opposed the aforesaid submission and drawing attention of the Court to page 23 of the writ petition submitted the petitioner has not submitted the mandatory requisite document mentioned in sub-Clause x of Clause 16(a) i.e. PQ Documents of Technology provider in the Envelope-A, whereas the same has been submitted in Envelope-B, which is also evident from paragraph No.3 of I.A. No. 04 of 2025, which is an application filed by the petitioner for taking additional facts and documents on record, wherein the petitioner himself has submitted that the petitioner is submitting the MoU (Tie-up agreement & Solar experience) which was submitted in Envelop B that was filed along with the bid of the petitioner required under NIT which is evident from the screenshot in annexure P/3. Further drawing attention of this Court to Clasue 4.1 of the NIT, he submitted that as per Clause 4.1 of the NIT, in the first instance, the physical envelop containing the earnest money is to be opened and if the earnest money is found proper, the online Envelop-A containing the Earnest Money details, its scanned copy and scan copy of documents required as minimum qualification to bid is to be opened and thereafter, if the tenderer is found qualified as per minimum qualification, the online Envelope- 5 B has to be opened, whereas, as the petitioner has not submitted the mandatory requisite document mentioned in sub-Clause x of Clause 16(a) i.e. PQ Documents of Technology provider in the Envelope-A, he was declared as disqualified. 5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6 From the materials placed on record it transpires that the petitioner has not submitted the mandatory requisite document mentioned in sub-Clause x of Clause 16(a) i.e. PQ Documents of Technology provider in the Envelope-A, whereas the same has been submitted in Envelope-B, therefore, after opening the Envelope-A, when the mandatory requisite document mentioned in sub-Clause x of Clause 16(a) i.e. PQ Documents of Technology provider was not found in it, the petitioner has been declared as disqualified. 7 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra