1 2025:CGHC:43496-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4610 of 2025 Gopi Ram Mandale S/o Late Pratap Das Mandale Aged About 41 Years R/o Gram Kharjiti, Post Damurdih, Police Station Dhumka, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Health Department) Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Health Services, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare and Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, A.G. and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.08.29 10:43:51 +0530 2 28.08.2025 1) Heard Mr. Mr. Rohan Kumbhare and Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2) The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s): “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and directing the respondents to forthwith grant the petitioner the right to operate the bicycle/scooter stand at Government District Hospital, Durg, pursuant to Tender No. K.G.C./Tender/2024/8145 dated 21.10.2024. 10.3 Quash/set aside the arbitrary decision of postponement of the tender taken in the executive meeting of Jeevandeep Committee on 19.11.2024, being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; 10.4 Direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for financial loss and harassment suffered due to illegal non- allotment despite successful tender”. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Durg, issued a third tender notice dated 21.10.2024 (Tender No. K.G.C./Tender/2024/8145) for operation of bicycle/scooter stand in 3 the hospital premises. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and submitted the highest bid, duly depositing a security amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by demand draft as per the rules. In accordance with past practice, the successful highest bidder of the third tender was entitled to allotment of the said contract. Despite being the successful tenderer, the petitioner was not granted permission to operate the parking stand. That the petitioner filed his representation vide order dated 13.05.2025 for permitting the petitioner for the execution of the said tender. Vide communication dated 31.05.2025, the Civil Surgeon informed the petitioner that although his bid was considered successful by the Tender Committee, the Executive Meeting of the Jeevandeep Committee held on 19.11.2024 resolved that the cycle stand should be operated by Jeevandeep Committee itself. The petitioner filed reminder application dated 04.06.2025 for the same. But unfortunately petitioner's reminder application dated 04.06.2025 also received the same reply, denying him allotment of the contract and merely offering refund of the security deposit. Thereafter, the Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, vide letter dated 18.06.2025 directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint. However, till date, no relief has been granted to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has preferred this instant petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the highest successful tenderer, was entitled to allotment of 4 the contract. Arbitrary postponement to favor Jeevandeep Committee amounts to discrimination and denial of equal opportunity. The past practice of allotting the contract to the highest successful tenderer in third round created a legitimate expectation. Denial of the same is arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner's right to carry on trade/business is infringed by wrongful denial despite his valid participation and success in the tender process. Further, the petitioner, belonging to a Scheduled Caste and financially weaker section, is being harassed, causing economic hardship and mental agony. The respondents' action of postponing the tender after declaring the petitioner successful, without assigning valid reasons or cancelling the process formally, is arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to settled principles of tender law. 5) Learned counsel for the respondents / State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner cannot claim any vested right merely on the ground of being the highest bidder. It is further submitted that the Executive Committee of Jeevandeep Samiti, in its meeting dated 19.11.2024, resolved to operate the cycle/scooter stand departmentally in order to augment institutional revenue and ensure better management within the hospital premises. Such a policy decision taken by the competent body in public interest cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. The action of the respondents is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. On the 5 contrary, the decision was taken by the competent Committee in exercise of its discretion, and the petitioner was duly informed vide communication dated 31.05.2025 and again on 04.06.2025. Lastly, the petitioner has suffered no financial prejudice, since the security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been refunded. Hence, there is no subsisting cause of action and no enforceable right in his favour. 6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsel. 7) In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The decision of the Jeevandeep Committee to operate the cycle/scooter stand on its own is a policy decision taken in public interest and for better management of hospital facilities. Additionally, it is an admitted position that the petitioner’s earnest money/security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been refunded. Consequently, the petitioner has neither suffered any financial loss nor established infringement of any vested right. Therefore, on this ground alone, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet