1 WPC No.4125 of 2025 2025:CGHC:38628-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4125 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 S/o. Late Narendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o. House No.B/ 103, Gali No. 12, Mandawali, East Delhi, Delhi. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Urban Administration And Development, Office At 4rth D Block Indravati Bhavan Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Durg Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - M/s. Eco Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Having Its Office At Plot No. 943, 54th Street, Tvs Colony, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai - 600101 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjape with Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocates. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. D.K. Wankhede, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.07 12:57:44 +0530 2 WPC No.4125 of 2025 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 .08 .2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for 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 21.07.2025 (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 respondent Municipal Corporation Durg directing to re- consider the bid of the petitioner for financial evaluation and if found L-1/lowest bidder direct the Respondent authorities to issue LOI/LOA in favor of the Petitioner. 3) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is one of the leading companies specializing in designing, constructing, operating and maintaining water and waste water treatment projects. Currently, the petitioner is executing various projects with different government and local bodies across the country, along with various UADD in the State of Chhattisgarh itself. 3 WPC No.4125 of 2025 (B) The Respondents Municipal Corporation Durg floated Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 1262 on 07.07.2025 for construction, testing, commissioning of all master plans including Operation and Maintenance including 15 years operation and maintenance of entire system. 4th call for total PAC Value as Rs. 14452.80 lacs. As per the NIT, the bid initial start date was 07.07.2025 and bid due date was 17.07.2025. Initially, the last date for submission of physical documents was 18.07.2025. The petitioner submitted its bid through OnLine on 17.07.2025 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 EC369418191IN, required under the NIT 18.07.2025. Considering the expertise, experience, and fulfillment of all essential qualifying conditions of the NIT, the petitioner was hopeful in succeeding in the tender process as the petitioner offered a competitive price and fulfilled all the evaluation criteria for techno commercial evaluation. However, the petitioner was shocked when he came to know to that his bid has been rejected and the same was website confirmed through official the "https://eproc.cgstate.gov.in" that the petitioner's bid has been rejected stating as under:- Also, on July 21, 2025 the petitioner company's MD "Manish Jain", received a mail from the respondent department that "This is to inform you that your organization 4 WPC No.4125 of 2025 has been rejected during Part-I (Envelope B) evaluation (i.e. Techno-commercial evaluation) by the tender owner, for Tender No. 171660 of Urban Administration and Development Department (UADD) department on Jul 21, 2025 4:02:10 PM due to GST Return Not Submitted." Copy of the impugned communication/notification dated 21.07.2025 obtained from the portal of respondent as well the information provided over mail dated 21.07.2025 regarding rejection of bid is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE P/1. (C) Learned counsel further submit that the Clause 1.1 sub clause 16(a)(vii) of the NIT requiring submission of “attested copy of valid GST Return certificate” is vague and does not specify the month, period, or type of return to be submitted. The petitioner has submitted returns of the prceeding financial year which is standard practice in such public tenders. Rejection on such vague criteria without clarification or corrigendum violates Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India by arbitrarily restricting the petitioner’s right to carry on business. He further submits that the reason assigned while rejecting the bid of the petitioner is baseless as the petitioner has submitted the GST return for the year 2024-25 despite there being no specific requirement under the NIT document. (D) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before taking the impugned action of the case of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to represent himself and further the action of respondent authorities violates the 5 WPC No.4125 of 2025 standard tendering procedure. Therefore, it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because from the action of the respondent, it is clearly reflected that pick and choose policy was adopted. He would further submit that the action of the respondent suffers from arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fide and bias and hence, the relief(s) as sought for in this petition may be granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that after due scrutiny of the tender form submitted by the petitioner, the authority concerned found that the documents submitted by the petitioner did not meet the specified format or requirements clearly mentioned in the tender document and the said deficiencies was duly recorded by the Evaluation Committee. In fact, the petitioner has not submitted the GST Return. Thus, the authorities have rightly declined to entertain the bid of the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner is ineligible and has not qualified as per the requisite criteria as has been provided in the NIT. Learned counsel would also submit that in the subject NIT, after following the due process, the tender process has been completed and L-1 bidder has already been declared. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. A bare perusal of the communication dated 30/07/2025 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Durg to the petitioner, it appears that the 6 WPC No.4125 of 2025 bid of the petitioner has been rejected due to non submission of GST return certificate. As per the tender Clause 1.1-16a-vii, the bidder is required to submit attested copy of valid GST return certificate along with Envelope ‘A’, however, upon due scrutiny, it appears that the documents provided by the petitioner did not meet the specified format or requirements clearly mentioned in the tender document, as he has not failed to submit the GST return. The said deficiency was duly recorded by the evaluation committee. 6. From the material available on record, it is quite vivid that the evaluation of the bid was conducted by the competent authority in a fair and transparent manner that too after following the due process as enumerated in the NIT. The petitioner failed to establish that no favoritism or arbitrary decisions were made. In fact, the each bid was assessed solely on the basis of complaints with the bid condition. 7. Be that as it may, it is the trite law that there cannot be disagreement to the legal proposition of the catena of decisions of Supreme Court to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in a tender matters. The Government and its instrumentality must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. By way of judicial review, the Court cannot examine the details of the terms of the Contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 has observed as under:- 7 WPC No.4125 of 2025 “22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non- performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The 8 WPC No.4125 of 2025 approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 9. Recently, the Apex Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024, decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the decisions rendered in various other celebrated judgments, observed as under: “21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the government/ its instrumentality must be free from 9 WPC No.4125 of 2025 arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner. 22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial intervention in Government Contracts. 23. In Sterling Computers Limited vs. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and Others (1993) 1 SCC 445, this Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts held: - “18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process”. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was said that: (p. 144a) “The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.” By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such 10 WPC No.4125 of 2025 enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly examine whether “decision-making process” was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India5, this Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action. “94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be 11 WPC No.4125 of 2025 tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others (2004) 3 SCC 553, as under: - “53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution.” 26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others , this Court after discussing number of judgments laid down two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters. They are: - “22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;” (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or 12 WPC No.4125 of 2025 distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574, while observing that the government contracts granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: - “50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in government contracts, if granted by the government bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest.” 28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsels for the Respondents relying upon the observations made in Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others (2016) 8 SCC 622, that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. However, in the said judgment also it is observed that if the employer has exercised the inherent 13 WPC No.4125 of 2025 authority to deviate from the essential term, such deviation has to be made applicable to all the bidders and potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as under: “47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but alsofrom the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached” as held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,(2012) 8 SCC 216]. 48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all 14 WPC No.4125 of 2025 bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decisionshould be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.” 10.Applying the well settled proposition of law to the facts of this case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, and particularly considering the fact that the L-1 bidder has already been declared, we do not find any merit in this petition and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in this petition. 11.Ergo, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Gowri