1 2025:CGHC:2995-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 253 of 2025 1 - Ramraja Minerals and Construction Private Limited, A private Limited Company duly incorporated as per the Companies Act Having its registered office at Quarter No.- 15, Khushi Vatika, Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through its director namely Jayendra Singh Bhandari, S/o Man Singh Bhandari, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ram Raja House, Plot No.- 289/197, VIP Road, Post- Mana, Amlidih, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 – Director, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Municipal Corporation Raipur, Through its Commissioner, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 7 - Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Respondent No.4 Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17-01-2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned communication dated 06-01-2025 (Annexure-P/4) and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- 10.1) This Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and held that the rejection of the petitioner bid vide impugned communication dated 6/1/25 (Annexure-P-4) is bad-in-law, illegal and against the provision of law and pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner bid for grant of work contract in accordance with the provisions of law. 10.2) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondents to not proceed further and issue work order to the any other third party in the interest of justice. 10.3) Alternatively, This Hon’ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash if any work contract/work order issued in favor of the third party by the respondent authorities in the interest of justice. 10.4) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.5) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent authorities have floated the Tender for BT Topping and Widening Work from Bhatgaon Chowk to Datrenga Turning. The petitioner and other bidders participated in the said tender. As per the terms and conditions of the NIT, Online tender vide tender No.162318, NIT No.95/15osa fo-vk-/uikfu/ 2024 dated 02-12-2024 the last date of submission of physical documents was 26-12-2024 at 05:30 p.m. The total 7 forms have been submitted their bid in sealed envelop. When the bid envelop were opened it was found that the petitioner has not submitted the affidavit as required by the respondent authorities in the prescribed formate in the name of Integrity Pact, therefore, for want of submission of affidavit along with the tender form he was declared ineligible and his bid was rejected which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since one of 4 the parties to the integrity pact is the respondent authorities, the same could not be notarized without their being any concluded contract and without there being any seal and signature of the respondent authorities. Therefore, the requirement of the said affidavit in the form of integrity pact itself is bad and only on this ground his bid has been rejected. Even the reasons for rejection of his bid have not been intimated and it is only disclosed when the petitioner enquired from the respondent authorities and therefore, by setting aside the communication dated 06-01-2025 (Annexure-P/4) the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the bid of the petitioner by holding that submission of the affidavit/ integrity pact is non-essential condition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that integrity pact in form of the affidavit is the required condition to submit along with the tender form since the petitioner has not submitted the required affidavit, his bid has been rejected, whereas, the other bidders have submitted their affidavits/ integrity pact which were duly notarized, therefore, their bid has been considered and the are declared eligible and the petitioner is declared in ineligible. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the condition of the NIT, he has been declared ineligible which is in accordance with the conditions of the NIT and therefore, the petition does not have any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Be that as it may, when the submission of the affidavit/ integrity pact is condition of the NIT which is to be submitted along with the 5 tender form having duly notarized on the stamp paper of Rs.100/-, the petitioner has to comply with the condition before submitting his bid form particularity when the others have submitted the same integrity pact in a notarized form the petitioner was also required to comply with the said condition. He cannot escape by saying that its is only after seal and signature of the respondent authorities the affidavit can be executed then only it can be filed along with the bid application. We find rejection of the bid application of the petitioner justified for the reason that he has not submitted the integrity pact/affidavit along with the bid form and we do not find any ground to direct the respondent authorities to consider the bid of the petitioner in view of the fact that his bid form is incomplete. 6. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner sans merits and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil