1 2025:CGHC:1340-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 77 of 2025 We The Foresters Welfare Society Having Registered OfÏcer At P4B – 745, Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Mineral Resources Department Indrawati Bhawan Block- 4 Second Floor Naya Raipur District - Raipur 492002 2. Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited Sector - 24 Block 7a Thrid Floor Atal Nagar Nava Raipur - 492015 ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General & Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. S.S. Baghel, leanred Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.10 14:49:33 +0530 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned notice for cancellation of notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P/1), for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court; 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice for cancellation of notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P/1), whereby the tender dated 19.09.2024 was cancelled, in violation of law; 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may further kindly direct the respondent No. 2 to proceed with a closed tender process after inviting bids from the bidders who submitted their bids on or before 06.11.2024 at 3.00 p.m.; 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered society founded by a retired senior forest ofÏcer of Forest Department working towards protection and conservation of forest and wildlife animals. The petitioner Society is registered with the State of Chhattisgarh having Registration No. 122202194229 and it is entitled to 3 enjoy all the fundamental, constitutional and legal rights enshrined in Part- III of the Constitution of India. He also submits that the respondent No. 1 is the Secretary of Mineral Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh whereas respondent No. 2 is a Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking involved in scientific exploration, commercial exploitation and viable trading of minerals in the State. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 issued a Tender Notification dated 19.09.2024 bearing Tender No. CMDC/Forest/2024-25/02 titled ‘Selection of Consultant for the Forest Clearance of Chhitapandariya Dolomite Mining Project having an area of 326.167 Ha in Tehsil Jaijepur, District Janjgir- Champa (Sakti), Chhattisgarh and also uploaded the same on their ofÏcial website. As per the Tender document, the last date and time for submission of Tender document was 15.10.2024 up to 3.00 p.m. at CMDC's Head OfÏce at Sector 24, Block No. 07 A, Third Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492015. He also submits that the respondent No. 2 issued a Corrigendum dated 08.10.2024 regarding extension of last date of submission tender and organizing pre-bid conference wherein the last date for submission of tender document was extended from 15.10.2024 up to 06.11.2024 at 03:00 p.m. He would submit that the extension up to 06.11.2024 was given on 08.10.2024 itself. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the extension of time granted by respondent No. 2, the petitioner along with other bidders appeared at CMDC's Head OfÏce on 06.11.2024 as stipulated in the corrigendum dated 08.10.2024 and submitted their bid on 4 time i.e. at 03:00 p.m. on 06.11.2024. Subsequently, when the petitioner and other bidders were waiting for opening of Part-1 of the Tender at 04:00 p.m., out of the blue, in complete highhandedness of respondent No. 2, an authorized representative of the respondent No. 2 orally intimated the petitioner and other bidders that submission of tender document is extended for another 07 days i.e. up to 13.11.2024 at 03:00 p.m. He further states that the petitioner along with other bidders objected against these malafide and arbitrary decision of the respondent No. 2 for extension of time for submission of bids. The petitioner also filed a written objection dated 06.11.2024 highlighting the arbitrary and malafide action of the respondent No. 2. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and other bidders requested the respondent No. 2 to open the bids and declare the successful bidder as per the corrigendum dated 08.10.2024. However, the respondent No. 2 executed a Panchnama dated 06.11.2024 wherein it was recorded that the bids submitted on 06.11.2024 were sealed and the signatures of concerned stakeholders were taken on record. He also contended that the Panchnama specifically stated that the date and time for submission of tender documents was extended from 06.11.2024 till 13.11.2024 because the respondent No. 2 received two applications from candidates for extension of time for submission of tender and the same was accepted after due consideration. The respondent No. 2 did not upload the decision concerning the extension of time for submission of tender on their ofÏcial website on 06.11.2024 until at around 5.00 p.m. Subsequently, at around 05:00 p.m., the respondent No. 2 issued the corrigendum dated 06.11.2024. This 5 clearly shows the malafide and ill intent of the respondent authorities in favoring other candidates outside the four corners of law. He would submit that earlier decision of extension of time from 15.10.2024 till 06.11.2024 was uploaded in the ofÏcial website of the respondent No. 2 vide corrigendum dated 08.10.2024 itself i.e. almost one month in advance. Nevertheless, when the petitioner and other bidders participated on 06.11.2024 and submitted their bids then without any previous intimation or corrigendum, respondent No. 2 extended the last date for submission of tender document citing a reason that they have received two applications from bidders for extension of time till 13.11.2024, this clearly shows that respondent No. 2 acted arbitrarily in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in order to give undue advantage/benefit to two candidates who could not submit their bids on time i.e. on 06.11.2024 before 03:00 p.m. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenged the corrigendum dated 06.11.2024 for extension of time in submitting tender by filing a writ petition bearing WPC No. 5727 of 2024. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned notice for cancellation of notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 11.11.2024. He further states that on 20.11.2024, the writ petition bearing WPC No. 5727 of 2024 came up for hearing. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 dismissed the WPC No. 5727 of 2024 having become infructuous and granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned notice for cancellation of notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 11.11.2024. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also applied for a certified copy of the all the letters and emails received by respondent No.2 6 in relation to the tender dated 19.09.2024 under the Right to Information Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in response to the said application under RTI Act, the petitioner received copies of letters written by ENEW RESOURCES dated 06.11.2024 and GEOPHOENIX dated 06.11.2024 wherein both ENEW RESOURCES and GEOPHOENIX requested respondent No. 2 for extension of time to submit the tender. He further submits that the impugned notice was issued without providing any reason for cancellation and that too after the submission of the bids by 04 bidders (including petitioner), which is prima facie arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is challenging the cancellation of the tender dated 08.11.2024, but the tender has been cancelled in view of the Clause 7 of the tender document, wherein Clause 7 give the right to tender issuing authority to cancel the tender at any stage. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 11. For ready reference, Clause 7 of the tender document, reads as under: “7. CMDC reserves the right to change, modify, add, alter the Document or cancel the tendering process without assigning any reasons thereof, at any stage 7 during the tendering process. All parties to whom this Document has been issued shall be informed any such change. The Tenderers or any third party shall not object to such changes / modifications / additions / alterations explicitly or implicitly. Any such object by the tenderer shall make the Tender’s proposal liable for rejection by CMDC. Further objection by any third party shall be construed as infringement on confidentiality and privileged rights of CMDC with respect to this Document.” 12. From perusal of the tender document, it is evident that in respect of Clause 7 of the Tender Document that the tender issuing authority reserves the right to change, modify, add, alter the Document or cancel the tendering process without assigning any reasons thereof, at any stage during the tendering process. The Tenderers or any third party shall not object to such changes / modifications / additions / alterations explicitly or implicitly. Any such object by the tenderer shall make the Tender’s proposal liable for rejection by the tender issuing authority. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan