1 2025:CGHC:29748-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2579 of 2025 1 - Vinay Jaiswal S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 50 Years Village And Post - Badsara, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer (Central Tender Cell) Office Of Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.07.03 00:11:56 +0530 2 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Sarguja Circle, Ambikapur, District - Ambikapur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.07.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- 10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.04.2015 (Annexure P/1) and 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/2. 10.2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to hold that the petitioner is eligible for the tender and direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of petitioner for further tender process. 10.3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a command directing the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the present writ petition. 3 10.4. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2. (a) Facts of the case is that the petitioner is an "A-Class" contractor and registered with the Respondents in their e- procurement portal. The Respondent No.3, issued e-Procurement Tender Notice, dated 28/2/2025 for construction of Court Room at Pratappur at Division-Surajpur. The said Tender was termed as "System Tender No.165278" and NIT was numbered as 303/TC/24- 25, dated 28/2/2025, by the Respondents. The probable amount of contract as per the tender was Rs. 700.44 lacs, for which the Earnest Money (EMD) was Rs. 3,50,225. The bidder was also required to submit Bank Solvency Certificate (not older than 12 months) of Rs. 105.07 Lacs along with the bid documents. As per the prescribed schedule, the last date of submission of the bid was 11/3/2025 at 17:00 hours and the end date to submit physical document was 17/3/2025 at 17:00 hours. The dates for opening of Envelope, A, B, C and D was scheduled on 18/3/2025 at 10:00 hours and the price bid shall be opened after technical evaluation. The petitioner, who otherwise fulfill all the requisite terms and conditions of the NIT and the tender document, submitted his bid and deposited the Earnest Money and paid the bid submission fees online, as per the terms and conditions of the NIT on 10/3/2025. (b) The petitioner also submitted Bank Solvency Certificate (not older than 12 months) dated 10/7/2024, issued State Bank of India, Surajpur Branch of Rs.1,00,00,000-/- (Rs. One Crore) and that of 4 Bank of Baroda, Surajpur Branch, dated 20/3/2024 of Rs.40,00,000-/- (Rs. Forty Lakhs), total amounting Rs. 1,40,00,000-/- (Rs. One Crore Forty Lakhs) along with the tender document. The Respondent No.3 opened the Envelope A, B, C and D submitted by the petitioner and informed the petitioner that as per the NIT, Bank Solvency of Rs. 105.07 Lacs was required and the Bank Solvency Certificates submitted by the petitioner is higher/not equivalent to the Bank Solvency Certificate as required by the respondents. The said information was communicated to the petitioner by the Respondent No.4, vide its impugned letter dated 28/4/2025 and it was stated that if the petitioner did not clear his stand, he will be disqualified from the tender process. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 29/4/2025 for the same and submitted a fresh Bank Solvency Certificate. Thereafter, the Respondent No.4 ssued the impugned order dated 5/5/2025 (Annexure P/2) informing the petitioner that he stands disqualified in the tender on account of the fact that the technical evaluation committee has not accepted the Bank Solvency Certificate dated 29/4/2025, of the petitioner as it was issued after the last date of submission of the bid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no clause in the NIT which mandates that the Bank Solvency Certificate should be of the exact amount. The object of obtaining a bank solvency certificate is to demonstrate an individual’s or entity’s financial stability and ability to meet their obligations, thus giving a Bank solvency Certificate of a higher amount than what has been asked in 5 the tender document will not disqualify the petitioner from the tender process. He further submits that as per the terms and conditions of NIT, the Bank Solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner was already with the respondents, therefore assigning the reason that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria of valid bank solvency is illegal, smacks mala fide and therefore impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the solvency certificate is required to be submitted by all tenderers was for a sum of Rs. 105.07 Lakhs meaning thereby that the solvency certificate could be of a sum of Rs. 105.07 Lakhs or more. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit any solvency certificate for value equal to or more than Rs. 105.07 Lakhs. He submits that he submitted two bank guarantees one issued by the Bank of Baroda on 20/03/2024 for a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs and other of State Bank of India issued on 10th July, 2024 for a sum of Rs. 1 Crore. He further submits that the total value of two solvency certificates was more than the required sum, therefore, he should not be declared as disqualified. According to the learned State counsel the solvency certificate issued by the Bank of Baroda was of 20th March, 2024 and that of State Bank of India was of 10th July, 2024 and none of them was of the value of the required amount and the validity of the earlier solvency was to end within 10 days, therefore, the Technical Committee was of the view that the petitioner did not qualify the tender conditions. It is further submitted that two solvency certificates were issued by two different banks 6 submitted by the petitioner while the work that was to be performed was of very important nature (of construction of court room at Pratappur), therefore, in their wisdom, the Technical Committee, before coming to the conclusion thought it appropriate to ask for documents vide letter dated 28/04/2025. On the next date i.e. 29/04/2025, the petitioner did obtain the solvency certificate of a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores but that was issued after the last date of submission of the tender document which was against clause 9 (2) of the e-procurement tender notice and was rightly turned down. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From bare perusal of the tender notice/NIT dated 28/2/2025, (Annexure P/3) will reveal that as per column 8 of the table the Bank Solvency Certificate of not older than 12 months of Rs.105.07 Lakhs was sought by the Respondents. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has submitted Bank Solvency Certificates issued by the Bank of Baroda of 20th March 2024 and that of State Bank of India was of 10th July 2024, amounting to Rs.1.30 Crores which is far more than the required amount as per the NIT. 7. The Bank Solvency Certificate given by the petitioner was valid as per the NIT, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be disqualified for the same. Particularly when no prescribed format has been given in the tender process for submitting the Bank Solvency Certificate. In the impugned order dated 28/4/2025, the Respondents have assigned the reason that the both the Bank Solvency Certificates given by the petitioner is of higher value/not 7 equal to the amount given in the NIT. The reason given by the respondents in the impugned order is vague and it cannot be supplemented by filing subsequent affidavit or issuing subsequent letter thereby assigning different reasons. The object of obtaining bank solvency is to ascertain the financial capacity of the contractor/individual to meet the financial commitments without defaulting, therefore, submitting the Bank Solvency Certificate of the higher value cannot be a disqualification for the petitioner in the tender process. 8. In view of the above, the order dated 28/4/2025 and 5/5/2025 are hereby quashed and it is directed that the case & offer of the petitioner be consider for further tender process. 9. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Amardeep