1 2025:CGHC:29705-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3348 of 2025 Varsha Infra A Partnership Firm Having Its H.O. At H.N. 2, Ward-39, Vardhman Nagar Durg (C.G.) Through Its Partners Dilip Kumar Jain S/o Shri Meghraj Jain, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of H.N. 2, Ward- 39, Vardhman Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department Shivnath Bhavan, Sector-19 Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Mool Chand Jain, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Prafulla Bharat, Advocate General alongwith Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.03 10:14:28 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mool Chand Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Prafulla Bharat, Advocate General alongwith Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. appearing for the respondents/ State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the impugned order dated 21/05/2025 (Annexure P/8) passed by the respondent No.2 be quashed in the interest of justice and the Respondents be directed to restore the petitioner's certificate of quantification for award of the contracts. 10.2 That the Respondents may kindly be directed to open the envelops of the petitioner and consider the bid submitted by the petitioner against the tender nos. 165941, 165835, 165834, 166161 and 165666. 10.3 That the Respondents may kindly be directed to not to award the contract to any other person without considering the technical and financial bid submitted by the petitioner for the tender nos. 165941, 165834, 165835, 166161 & 165666. 10.4 Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 08/05/2023 passed in WPC No.2860 of 2021, whereby the Division Bench of this 3 Court has held as under:- “12. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in New Horizons Limited (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner has submitted its tender independently in the name of M/s. Kaushik Buildcon which is clear from Annexures P-3 & P-4 and it has never been declared by him that he has submitted the bid in consortium or in joint venture with M/s. Kaushik Enterprises and thus, in absence of such declaration in the tender documents, experience of other firm i.e. M/s. Kaushik Enterprises cannot be considered for its technical qualification. It was open to the petitioner to submit tender with M/s. Kaushik Enterprises in joint venture / with M/s. Kaushik Enterprises, which it did not either choose or opt and then after consideration when he is not found eligible for want of technical qualification, he cannot turn around and claim that the experience of M/s. Kaushik Enterprises of which Dharmendra Kumar Kaushik & Rajiv Lochan Tiwari, both, are also partners, be taken into account while counting experience, because, the partners of the two firms – M/s. Kaushik Buildcon i.e. the petitioner herein, who is the tenderer, and M/s. Kaushik Enterprises, aresame. In absence of joint venture and declaration while submitting tender, and once the petitioner has independently submitted tender in the name of M/s. Kaushik Buildcon, he cannot rely upon the technical qualifications of M/s. Kaushik Enterprises for the purpose of its technical 4 qualification. It is not the case of the petitioner that its partners have technical experience which has to be considered. It is the specific case of the petitioner that other firm’s namely, M/s. Kaushik Enterprises’ technical experience has to be counted. This argument fails and is hereby rejected. 13. Secondly, immediately thereafter, the University, in public interest, has cancelled the said tender which has also been challenged by the petitioner by way of amendment. It is well settled law that the scope of judicial scrutiny on cancellation of tender process is quite limited, as the Government is guardian of State finances and is expected to protect it, and judicial review is available to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism, however, there are inherent limitations on power of judicial review. It is also well settled law that right to choose cannot be considered as arbitrary as long as it is complying with the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After consideration of the case in hand, since the petitioner is not technically qualified for the work in question as held vide Annexure P-3, which we have already upheld and further, cancellation of the tender in question thereafter cannot be said to be arbitrary, as in all fairness, the University has decided to cancel the tender in question in pubic interest. 14. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the petitioner has rightly been technically disqualified for the tender in 5 question and subsequent cancellation of the contract does not smack arbitrariness or suffers from irrationality warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s)” 4. In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WPC No.2860 of 2021. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Jyoti