1 2025:CGHC:32172-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3536 of 2025 M/s World Class Services Ltd. Through Its Assistant Vice President (Sales) Shri Sanjay Kaushik S/o Shri Sitaram Kaushik, Age 51 Years Registered Office - C-221, Kailash Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Opposite Shreyas Cinema, Ghatkopar-West, Mumbai - 400086, Maharashtra, Corporate Office - 380, Goyal Nagar, Service Road, Near Bank Of Baroda, Bengali Square, Indore - 452016, Madhya Pradesh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Chhattisgarh, State Secretariat, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492002. 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, (Govt. Of Chhattisgar Undertaking) Through Its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Old Administrative Building, Cseb Campus, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492013 3. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Executive Director (Operations And Management). 1st Floor, Old Administrative Building, Cseb Campus, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492013. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3539 of 2025 M/s World Class Services A Proprietorship Concern Through Its Proprietor- Devendra Arora S/o Surjeet Singh, Age 46 Years Registered BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.11 19:24:03 +0530 2 Address 380, Goyal Nagar, Service Road, Near Bank Of Baroda, Bengali Square, Indore- 452016, Madhya Pradesh ---Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Chhattisgarh, State Secretariat, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Old Administrative Building, Cseb Campus, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492013 3. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Executive Director (Operations And Management), 1st Floor, Old Administrative Building, Cseb Campus, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492013 ---Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Nema, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For respective respondents : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Nema, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the 3 petition. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel, appearing for the respective respondents. 2. The WPC No. 3536 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. To hold that the submission of the original Demand- Drafts dated 18.02.2025 by the petitioner to the respondent-Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) for purposes of furnishing of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Tender-Fee (which lapsed on 19.05.2025 before the due date of bid-submission on 29.05.2025), amounts to a mere technical defect which is ‘curable’ in nature and the same does not vitiate the prospects/bid of the petitioner on merits and in substance; ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 18.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 passed by the respondent- Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) by way of which it has refused to accept the Demand-Drafts furnished by the petitioner [for depositing the Earnest Money Deposit and Tender-fee for its accompanying tender-bid], as being manifestly unjust, unfair, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, in the nature of mandamus to respondent-Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited to accept the Demand- Drafts furnished by the petitioner for depositing the 4 Earnest Money Deposit and Tender-fee for its accompanying tender-bid and to consequently consider the petitioner’s bid on merits; iv. For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper, in light of the circumstances of the case for imparting substantial justice to the petitioner; v. To allow the petition with costs.” 3. The WPC No. 3539 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. To hold that the submission of the original Demand- Drafts dated 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 by the petitioner to the respondent-Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) for purposes of furnishing of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Tender-Fee (which lapsed on 29.05.2025 before the due date of bid-submission on 29.05.2025), amounts to a mere technical defect which is ‘curable’ in nature and the same does not vitiate the prospects/bid of the petitioner on merits and in substance; ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 18.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 passed by the respondent- Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) by way of which it has refused to accept the Demand-Drafts furnished by the petitioner [for depositing the Earnest Money Deposit and Tender-fee for its accompanying tender-bid], as being manifestly unjust, unfair, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, in the nature of mandamus to respondent-Chhattisgarh State Power 5 Distribution Company Limited to accept the Demand- Drafts furnished by the petitioner for depositing the Earnest Money Deposit and Tender-fee for its accompanying tender-bid and to consequently consider the petitioner’s bid on merits; iv. For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper, in light of the circumstances of the case for imparting substantial justice to the petitioner; v. To allow the petition with costs.” 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the present writ petitions are being under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned orders dated 18.06.2025 and 26.06.2025 passed by the respondent-Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (for short, ‘CSPDCL’) by way of which such State-Authority/Corporation had decided to outs the petitioner’s tender-bid only on account of a technical and curable defect in its bid limited only to expiry of the accompanying Demand-Drafts submitted by it for purposes of deposit of Earnest-Money Deposit and Tender-Fee. He further submits that occurrence of such ‘default’ was caused in light of its initial preparation in filing its bid in a tender which saw its repeated extensions at the hands of the CSPDCL-leading to a bona fide lack of oversight and expiry of the originally-prepared Demand- drafts dated 18.02.2025 (in WPC No 3536 of 2025 which were to be submitted in February 2025 ) and dated 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025 which were prepared in view of the original deadline of 03.03.2025), but were finally submitted on 29.05.2025 (extended date of submission of bids). It was during and owing to such 6 ‘extension’ that the petitioner could not gauge that its original DDs dated 18.02.2025 (in WPC No. 3536 of 2025 had lapsed on 19.05.2025) and dated 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025 had lapsed on 28.05.2025), but were inevitably and mistakenly submitted by it along with its bid on 29.05.2025, by which the same had technically crossed/lapsed the validity period of 90 days. 5. It further contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the respondent/CSPDCL through its Executive Director (Operations and Management) i.e. respondent No. 3 had originally floated a Tender through Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘NIT’) bearing No. CE/O&M/Tr-09 RFx No. (8100040933) dated 17.01.2025 for “Operation Work of 1950 Nos. 33/11 KV Sub-stations of Chhattisgarh State” wherein the originally scheduled last-date of submission of bids [and opening of bids] was fixed as 03.03.2025. However, owing to repeated extension orders dated 14.02.2025, 10.03.2025, 27.03.2025, 8.04.2025 and 28.04.2025, such last-date of submission of bids [and opening of bids] was finally extend upto 29.05.2025. He also contended that bidders were required to deposit Tender-fee (Rs. 10,000/-) and Earnest Money Deposit (Rs. 5,00,000/-) [through Demand-drafts] as a pre-requisite, along with submission of bids. The petitioner being desirous to participate in the said NIT, had prepared its bid and prepared Demand Drafts dated 18.02.2025 (in WPC No. 3536 of 2025) and dated 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025) so as to file/submits its bid as per the originally scheduled timeline ending 03.03.2025. The validity of such Demand-drafts of the petitioner was 90 days from the date of issuance and hence, the same were valid until 7 19.05.2025 (in WPC No. 3536 of 2025) and dated 28.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025). Owing to the repeated extensions in the NIT's timeline, the petitioner did not file its bid and demand-drafts in March 2025 and eventually filed/submitted its bid (along with the aforesaid Demand-drafts) on the last date of submission of bids i.e. on 29.05.2025. However, by such time, the validity of such Demand- drafts dated 18.02.2025 (in WPC No. 3536 of 2025) and dated 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025) had unfortunately lapsed, which could not gauge the attention of the petitioner due to bona fide lack of oversight to notice that the 90-days’ period of validity of the same had expired. As a result, when the bids were finally ‘opened’ by the CSPDCL on 29.05.2025, the petitioner's bid were found to be ‘invalid’ - only on account of its Demand-drafts (for furnishing of the EMD and tender-fee) been ‘expired’ on 19.05.2025 (in WPC No. 3536 of 2025) and 28.05.2025 (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025). 6. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that as soon as this was brought to attention of the petitioner, the petitioner acted promptly and diligently and filed a representation dated 30.05.2025 before the CSPDCL wherein it conceded to such lack of oversight and undertook to file fresh Demand-drafts, while praying that such ‘defect’ was technical and curable in nature and hence, its bid entire may not be summarily dismissed, solely on such account. The petitioner had duly filed its fresh Demand-drafts before the CSPDCL on 02.06.2025 (a copy of which was duly annexed vide its representation dated 30.05.2025 before the CSPDCL) and hence, its bid is no longer ‘defective’, showing its sincerity in participation in the bidding-process. He also submits that 8 awaiting response from the respondents, the petitioner filed written- reminders dated 02.06.2025 and 16.06.2025 with the same plea that its fresh Demand-drafts may kindly be accepted and its bid be considered on merits, instead of its complete/outright ouster and consequent financial loss of business opportunities to the petitioner. However, such genuine and repeated requests of the petitioner have been summarily dismissed by the CSPDCL vide its impugned orders dated 18.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 citing summary-reason that it shall not accept any fresh ‘DD’ post the scheduled date of opening of bids, despite being in possession of the fresh-demand drafts. This has resulted in the outright/summary ouster of the petitioner from the entire bidding-process (which is ongoing as on date of filing this petition) not on merits, but only on account of such Demand-drafts, which had stood ‘expired’ by merely 10 days (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025) and 1 day (in WPC No. 3539 of 2025). It is emphasized by the petitioner that any such ‘curable defects’ do not affect the meritorious prospects of its bid in any manner whatsoever. He further contended that it is the case of the petitioner that its afore-discussed dismissal from the bidding-process at the hands of the respondent- CSPDCL on mere curable defects is harsh and punitive in nature and in violation of the settled law that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice and that procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use. Even in case the respondent-CSPDCL had found a technical default in the bid of the petitioner, it was under the bounden duty of affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to ‘cure’ such procedural/technical default 9 which was undisputedly completely unrelated to the merits or eligibility of its bid. 7. Learned Senior Advocate further states that being aggrieved by the above, the present petitions are being filed before this Hon'ble Court. It is also clarified that the petitioner has not challenged any provision of the NIT floated by the CSPDCL and hence, the question of the extent/scope of judicial interference in tender-relate or commercial matters does not arise to hinder the present plea of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the general (but not straight-jacket rule) principle that tenders and their terms are left to the interpretation of the issuing-agency does not arise in the peculiar facts of this case. Moreover, it is the case of the petitioner that it is settled law that where the policies adopted by the Government have no nexus with the ‘object’ that it seeks to achieve or is mala fide or when the process is arbitrary or discriminatory, the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised. He also states that in fact, allowing the petitioner to participate in the NIT and considering its bid on merits shall only enable the CSPDCL to have more merit on its plate and make an informed choice which shall ultimately serve the larger objective of public interest, which the respondent ‘State’ is any duty-bound to espouse and ensure. In light of the above, the petitioner has sought shelter from this Hon'ble Court only with a very limited prayer for issuance of effective directions to the respondent- CSPDCL to entertain the petitioner's bid-documents including its fresh Demand-drafts dated 30.05.2025 (for purposes of EMD and tender-fee), and consider the same on merits as opposed to its summary dismissal of the same, only on the basis of technical/curable defects of expired 10 Demand-drafts. Granting the reliefs as prayed for to the petitioner, shall not in any manner amount to re-writing the terms of the Tender/contract nor shall it amount to any bargain in its favour. Hence, this petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Advocate General and learned counsel, appearing for the respective respondent oppose the prayer made by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner is challenging the cancellation of the bid, but the bid has been cancelled in view of the Clause 1.5 of the tender document, wherein Clause 1.5 give the right to tender issuing authority to cancel the bid of the petitioner. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 10. For ready reference, Clause 1.5 of the the tender document, reads as under: “1.5. First of all, envelope of earnest money & tender fee (if tender documents are downloaded from our official website) will be opened and verified. If this is found in order, then only second part of tender i.e. technical & commercial bid of tender will be opened and finally the price bid of the tenderer, who has successfully crossed two stages of opening, will be opened online (subject to conditions). The tenders not accompanied with adequate amount of earnest money & tender fee (if tender documents are downloaded from our official website) will summarily be rejected and 11 returned unopened. If found necessary, the price bids may be opened later on, for which new date/time will be intimated separately. The bidder or his only one authorized representative having authorization will be allowed to be present during the opening of tenders.” 11. Upon reviewing the tender document, it is clear that Clause 1.5 stipulates that the tender issuing authority reserves the right to cancel a bidder's bid, if the tender is not accompanied by the requisite earnest money and tender fee. In such cases, the tenders will be summarily rejected and returned unopened. In the present case, the petitioner's bid was cancelled due to failure to submit the demand drafts in a timely manner, which is a requirement under the tender conditions. This highlights the importance of adhering to the tender requirements, including the timely submission of necessary documents and fees. The petitioner's failure to comply with this requirement led to the cancellation of their bid, as per the terms & condition of the tender document. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the tender issuing authority's decision to cancel the petitioner's bid appears to be in accordance with the terms of the tender document. 12. In view of the above, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief claimed by the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan