1 2025:CGHC:4923-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5731 of 2024 M/s Shukla and Company, through the Proprietor Chandra Prakash Shukla, S/o Late Shri Krishna Kant Shukla, aged about 57 years, R/o Indra Ward No. 16, In front of Hotel Anand, Krishna Kant Gali, Jagdalpur, District Baster, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Union of India Through The Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India, 122-C, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi, 111001 2 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Principal, PM Shri School, Jawahar Navoday Vidyalaya, Dharampura-2, Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh, PIN Code 494001 4 - The School Purchase Advisory Committee PM Shri School, Jawahar Navoday Vidyalaya, Dharampura-2, Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh, PIN Code 494001 5 - The Consignee / Reporting Officer Behind P G College, In front of Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, PIN Code 494001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI For Respondents/ State : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy Solicitor General along with Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC and Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Advocate Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.29 10:25:03 +0530 2 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Dy. Solicitor General along with Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC and Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1/ UOI. 2. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents, which was on record and on a pointed query being from learned counsel for the petitioner whether he wishes to file rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents, he states that he does not wish to file the same as sufficient documents are on record. On the basis of which, we proceed to hear the matter. 3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking redressal against the Respondents' arbitrary and unjustifiable actions in issuing a re- tender for grocery supplies without cancelling or providing due notice regarding the original tender, where the Petitioner was declared L1 as per the rules alleging that the Respondents have failed to fulfil their obligations under the applicable tender norms and the principle of transparency, despite the Petitioner's compliance and qualification for the work order in the original tender process with following prayers :- “10.1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Order/Direction directing the respondents to uphold the initial tender process, recognize the Petitioner's L1 bidder status, and issue the work order in favor of the Petitioner firm. 3 10.2 Quash the Re-tender Notification issued on 31.08.2024 (Annexure P/5) by respondent No. 2 thereby restoring the Petitioner's right to supply as per the original tender process. 10.3. Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper including the cost of the petition, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Bid was issued on 22.06.2024 by respondent No. 1 through GeM (Government e- Marketplace) having the Bid Offer Validity of 90 days for the supply of certain grocery items stated therein for respondent School/JNV situated at Bastar. The bid documents specified the end date of the bid i.e. 13.07.2024. It further provided that the minimum average annual turnover of the bidder must be Rs.3 lakhs and should have 1 year of past experience in similar services. Certain documents were required to be submitted by the bidder along with the bid. The bid value provided in the bid document was Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakh rupees only). Further, respondent No.5 was appointed as the Consignee/Reporting Officer. Pursuant to the aforesaid Bid Document issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner firm submitted his bid/quotation on 29.06.2024 for the year 2024-25 quoting price of the grocery items of approximately 78 items. In the note appended to the aforesaid price quoted by the petitioner, it is specifically stated therein that the supply rates would remain valid until the tender process on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal was 4 concluded. Thereafter, a list of sellers qualified financially was issued on the GeM portal wherein the petitioner firm was declared as LI bidder whereas two other bidders were disqualified. He further submitted that the petitioner was under the expectation of securing a work order from respondent No. 2/School since the petitioner firm was declared as L1 bidder on the GeM Portal, but respondent No. 2 without having any authority of law disobeyed the entire tender process and issued the tender through newspaper publication in utter disregard to the list issued on GeM portal. He also submitted that the re-issuance of the tender without prior notice or communication of the rejection of the petitioner’s original bid is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the UOI/ respondent No.1 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that initially the tenders were invited for total 11 heads including mess items through Gem as ass through Daily Newspaper and in the tender, which was floated on the GeM portal, the petitioner was declared as the L1 bidder after disqualification of the other two bidders, who were L1 and L2, earlier the petitioner was the L3 bidder, whereas in the tender, which was floated in the Local News Papers, one Raja Kirana Stores was declared as L1. Thereafter, a comparative chart for total 79 items of mess grocery items (in List 1 – 65 items and in List 2 – 14 items) was prepared and for 19 out of 65 items from 5 List -1 and 2 items {Aashirvaad Flour (Rs. 43.9/kg) and Green Peas (Rs.97.9/kg) out of 14 items in List – 2 the petitioner was accepted as L1 and for 16 items out of 65 items in List-1 and 10 items out of 14 items in List-2 M/s Raja Kirana Stores was declared as L1 and when supply order dated 04.07.2024 was issued to Raja Kirana Store, he refused to supply the items, the information regarding non-supply of material by M/s Raja Kirana Stores and request to purchase from L-2 was placed before District Magistrate/Chairman, it was ordered to be forfeited the security amount deposited by M/s Raja Kirana Stores and not to take material from L-2 and order to call for re-tender. Thereafter, the process of first re-tender / second tender (re-tender) was started following the orders of District Magistrate in which only the materials not supplied by M/s Raja Kirana Stores were included in the tender. Re-tendering of the materials being supplied by the petitioner and other suppliers who were L-1 in the first tender were not included. He further submitted that tender was invited for a total 06 Heads including 22 items in Daily Newspapers for the second tender. The petitioner can very well participate in the second tender. 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the present petition and materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition and the return filed by the respondents as well as the 6 materials available on record, it transpires that the second tender has been issued for the items, which were allotted to M/s Raja Kirana Stores, who was declared L-1 in the tender process invited through Daily News Paper, and not materials which are being supplied by the petitioner and other suppliers who were L-1 in the first tender, as such, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the re-tender process, if he so wishes. 9. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra