1 2025:CGHC:49133-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4693 of 2025 Amit Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Jay Bhagwan Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Raigarh Road, Patthalgaon, Thana and Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Director Urban Administration, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt. – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector Jashpur, Distt. – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Municipal Council Patthalgaon Through Chief Municipal Officer, Patthalgaon, Distt. – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Sub-Engineer Office Of Municipal Council Patthalgaon, Distt. – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Shri Mohd. Javed Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Patthalgaon, Distt. – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Abhishek K. Singh, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.25 15:14:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State as well as Mr. Abhishek K. Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned notesheet dated 18.06.2025 by which the tender process no. 167739 has been cancelled after opening the bid. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent No. 4 & 5 which relates to issuance of tender and passing of the order impugned for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow 3 the petitioner to provide placement labours being a L-1 in tender No. 167739. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.08.2025 within stipulated time period. 10.5 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Municipal Council, Paththalgaon, issued a procurement tender vide letter dated 01.05.2025 through online mode bearing System Tender No. 167739. The last date for submission of applications was fixed as 22.05.2025 and the date for opening the bids was fixed as 26.05.2025. The same was also published in the newspaper. In all, seven firms/contractors, including the petitioner, participated in the tender process. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the said seven firms, one bidder, namely Vaibhav Kumar Agrawal, was disqualified, and thereafter the tender was opened on 29.05.2025 in which the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder (L- 1) quoting 11.97%. The financial bid comparison and quotation details were uploaded on the website of the Department of UADD. However, suddenly, on 18.06.2025, the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) cancelled 4 the tender on the ground of certain error after opening of the bids and directed for issuance of a fresh tender. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said action has been taken with mala fide intention to deprive him of the contract and to extend undue benefit to a favoured person. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the CMO, on 17.07.2025, directed issuance of a second tender notice. Four contractors participated in the second process as per the note-sheet dated 04.08.2025. The petitioner again turned out to be the lowest bidder and his bid was also forwarded for approval, but no work order was issued. Left with no option, the petitioner filed an RTI application on 18.07.2025 seeking information regarding Tender No. 167739. As information was not supplied in time, he preferred a first appeal on 18.08.2025. Meanwhile, the petitioner submitted representation to the Collector, Jashpur on 12.08.2025, raising grievances regarding the arbitrary action of the CMO. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upon obtaining documents on 18.08.2025, it was revealed that the earlier tender was cancelled after opening, despite the petitioner being declared as ‘L-1’, and fresh proceedings were initiated even prior to intimating the petitioner. The communication regarding cancellation was belatedly made through e-mail only on 21.08.2025. This, according to the petitioner, clearly shows the mala fide intention of the authorities. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 No. 4 and 5 submits that though the petitioner was found ‘L-1’, upon oral objections raised by other contractors, scrutiny of his documents was made and it was found that the petitioner had not submitted mandatory documents as per Clause 17(x), (xii) & (xiv) of the tender conditions. Accordingly, the Sub Engineer recommended cancellation of the tender. It is submitted that the decision was taken in the interest of the State exchequer to avoid financial irregularity. The cancellation notice was displayed on the notice board of the Municipal Council on 19.06.2025, and after following due procedure, a fresh tender process was initiated. It is further contended that the petitioner did not participate in the second tender process and, therefore, has no subsisting cause of action, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had complied with all requirements of the tender. The grounds mentioned by the respondents for cancellation are afterthoughts. He submits that the documents alleged to be missing were either already attached digitally (as the process was entirely online) or could only be furnished after issuance of work order. The action of cancelling the tender based on oral objections without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without recording reasons in the note-sheet is arbitrary and mala fide. 8. We have carefully examined the pleadings, considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, and perused the materials on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially found to be ‘L-1’ 6 and his bid was forwarded for approval. The subsequent cancellation of the tender process, not once but twice, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without recording cogent reasons in the note-sheet, certainly does not reflect fairness or transparency. Even otherwise, consideration of mere oral objections without placing them on record runs contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. Such action has the effect of not only depriving the petitioner of his legitimate expectation arising out of the tender process, but also raises a presumption of arbitrariness in administrative decision-making. However, this Court is equally conscious of the fact that judicial review in contractual/tender matters is limited. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the tendering authority unless there is a clear case of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules. 10. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the earlier tender has already been cancelled on two occasions and a fresh tender process has been initiated. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to quash the cancellation and revive the earlier tender. Instead, the petitioner must be left free to participate in the ongoing/fresh tender process and to compete on an equal footing. 11. Accordingly, while this Court refrains from interfering with the impugned action, it is directed that in all future tender processes, the respondents shall ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to the principles of natural justice. Any cancellation of tender after declaration of ‘L-1’ shall be accompanied by cogent reasons duly communicated to 7 the concerned party. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan