1 2025:CGHC:1118-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6081 of 2024 Forech India Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At S-23, Green Park Extension, New Delhi- 110016, Through Its Authorized Representative. … Petitioner(s) -Versus- 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Through Its Director In-Charge, Address- Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Through Its Chief General Manager (Materials Management), Address- Materials Management Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distict- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Through Its Chief General Manager (Mm And Wrm), Address-Material Management And Wrm Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Through Its Corporate Office, Address- Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi- 110003. 5 - M/s Nrc Industries Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 9th Mile Stone Kashmir Road, P.O. Verka, Amritsar, Punjab. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 08/01/2025 1. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents No. 1 to 3, allowing the respondent No. 5 to participate in the tender process and also to reconsider the tender process after disqualifying the respondent No. 5 with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner most humbly prays for the following relief(s) from this Hon'ble Court: - A. Issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in allowing Respondent No. 5 to participate in the tender process under RFx No. 8000043798 for the supply of Steel Cord Pipe Conveyor Belts (800MM) as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the tender conditions. B. Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to disqualify Respondent No. 5 from the tender process under RFx No. 8000043798, due to its failure to meet the Pre-Qualification Requirements (PQRs), misrepresentation, and suppression of material information. C. Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to reconsider the tender process after disqualifying Respondent No. 5 and be directed to do so in accordance with the tender conditions. 3 D. Quash the declaration of Respondent No. 5 as technically qualified, as per the declaration notification dated 25.10.2024 as is mentioned in the bid statement(technical) vide Annexure P/4. E. Grant any other relief or order deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition are that, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have floated a tender for supply of steel cord pipe conveyor belts (800 mm) under RFX No. 8000043798, dated 16.10.2024. The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 and others have participated in tender process and submitted their techno commercial bids. The technical bids and price bids was to be opened on 25.10.2024. The petitioner had submitted his bid on 18.10.2024 along with all requisite documents under the terms and conditions of the tender. During the pre-bid period, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 5 had also submitted its techno commercial bid. Since, the petitioner also came into knowledge that the respondent No. 5 was also approved for participation in the reverse auction scheduled for 21.11.2024. Despite being ineligible under the terms of the tender, he immediately raised an objection on 21.11.2024 stating therein that the respondent No. 5 is not the manufacturer of steel cord pipe conveyor belts as required under the tender. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 has previously been disqualified from the similar tender for misrepresentation and non-compliance with technical requirements and given the details of instances of tender No. GEM/2022/B/2357111 dated 19.07.2022 by Indian Oil Corporation 4 Ltd. Panipat, where the participation of the petitioner was rejected. Further, in another tender number GEM/2024/B/5366528 dated 30.09.2024 is by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vadodara, where the documents which has been filed by the respondent No. 5 was not as per the specification under the said tender. Further, intimated that in the APGENCO tender No. 61000079 dated 07.05.2021, the respondent No. 5 participation was declared invalid through the Court intervention and in the Sales Raurkela and Buranpur plants, the respondent No. 5 was not listed as the approved vendor for steel cord pipe conveyor belts, due to his non-manufacturing status. Despite these objections, the respondent No. 1 has rejected the objection of the petitioner on 21.11.2024 stating therein that the tender was being processed as per its terms and conditions. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 5 is ineligible to participate in the tender process. He has previously debarred for 3 years by NTPC Ltd. from 10.08.2020 to 09.08.2022 as per the NTPC circular No. 813 dated 12.08.2020. The respondent No. 5 has not declared the previous transgression and the declaration is required condition as per the clause 37.0 sub- clause B(2) of the general terms and conditions of contract for purchase (October-2023). The blacklisting/debarring by NTPC for 3 years constitute a breach of the integrity clause and despite having ineligible, the respondent No. 5 has participated in the tender process and the same was got into knowledge of the respondent No. 1 to 3, yet they are allowing the respondent No. 5 to participate in the 5 reverse auction process, which is illegal and contrary to the tender conditions under RFX No. 8000043798. Therefore, the interference of this court is required in the tender process and the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to reconsider the tender process after disqualifying the respondent No. 5 to participate in the tender. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3, apart from their return, submitted that the petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the participation of the respondent No. 5 in the subject tender on the ground that he has been previously debarred/blacklisted by various agencies, but his debarring on previous occasion does not make the respondent No. 5 ineligible to bid in the subject tender process. The answering respondent is following the effective and transparent procedure in the process of tender. He would submit that the respondent No. 5 is previously successfully completed the supplies to the answering respondents without any adverse remark and the answering respondents are not having any specific information supported by any documentary proof with respect to the blacklisting of the respondent No. 5 by other agencies. Even if the respondent No. 5 was earlier blacklisted/debarred, the period for which he was blacklisted and debarred has already been over and the same cannot be considered on the way of participating in the present tender. The petitioner is challenging to jeopardize the entire tender process only because of the reason that he has been unsuccessful in the subject tender. He would further submit that the petitioner is not prayed for any relief that he may be allotted the tender or he is entitled for allotment of the 6 tender in his favour, but challenging the tender on the basis that the respondent No. 5 is the ineligible participant and the entire tender process may be reconsidered. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the petition. 6. The petitioner is emphasizing the clause 37.0 sub clause B(2) of the general terms and condition of contract for purchase (October 2023), which reads as under:- “37.B(2) Bidder must declare, whether asked or not in a bid-document, any previous transgressions of such code of integrity with any Procuring entity during the last three years or of being debarred by the any other Organisation Failure to do so shall amount to a violation of this code of integrity.” 7. When the respondents No. 1 to 3 came with the specific plea that the respondent No. 5 has successfully completed the tender allotted to him by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and they are not having any specific information supported by any documentary proof with respect to the blacklisting of the respondent No. 5 by other agencies, it cannot be said that permitting the respondent No. 5 in tender process is violative of any condition. The alleged blacklisting by NTPC from 10.08.2020 to 09.08.2023 may have a point against the respondent No. 5, but it is for the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider it or not in view of the terms and condition of the tender. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that if the respondent No. 5 is declared unsuccessful or disqualified, the tender would be allotted to him and 7 his right would be defeated by permitting the respondent No. 5 to participate in the tender. He has not claimed any relief for himself, but has claimed for reconsideration of the entire tender process, which cannot be done in the present case. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the locus standi to file a writ petition, if the person is not affected directly or substantially, or his fundamental rights have not been infringed. In the matter of Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 4 SCC 734, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 2 of its order that: “Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas-corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases.” 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere in the petition and the present petition is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved