1 2025:CGHC:1364-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 88 of 2025 1 - M/s Shankar Prasad Sharma Through Proprietor Shankar Prasad Sharma, S/o- Seetaram Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o- Plot No. 381/3, Cross Street No. 3, Pragati Nagar, Risali Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban and Rural Administration Development Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Risali, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Risali, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Bharatiya Security Services Through Proprietor Meena Patel Office At B-44 Near Shiv Mandir Infront of Jayaswal Kirana Store Karamchari Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - ELEEMECH Technocrats Through Proprietor Mohammed Zaheer Office At Qtr-4-A, Street- 16, Sector-1 Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner – Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 – Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No.2 and 3 – Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09-01-2025 1. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to set aside/quash the entire tender proceeding including I. NIT No. 5/PWD/RISALI/2024 (First Call) System Tender No.161872 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent corporation to consider the bid of the petitioner in the aforementioned impugned NIT. 10.3 That any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts as per the petition, are that the Respondent Municipal Corporation, Risali Bhilai District- Durg issued E-Procurement Tender Notices namely Scope of Work for cleaning of ditches, drains, roads, etc. for Wards situated in Municipal Corporation, Risali Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.). The petitioner being contractor and having requisite experience submitted his bid and entire documents. The petitioner after submitting the bid online received the receipt bearing NIT No.5/PWD/RISALI/2024 (First Call) Tender No.161872. The petitioner being not aware with English language submitted entire documents mentioned in Hindi which were required for tender. As the date for opening the bid was 19-12-2024, therefore, 3 the petitioner alongwith other bidders was present before the tendering authority on 19-12-2024, in the office of the Tendering authority, however, due to some technical reasons the authority did not disclose to the bidders and the process could not be completed as per the advertised schedule. Thereafter, feeling necessity of new schedule to be prescribed, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application before the Respondent No. 2 for time schedule and intimation of fresh date of opening of tender. The petitioner when tried to enquire as to why the bid has not been opened yet, the concerned authority orally communicated the petitioner that he will be disqualified in the tender because he has not deposited 15% of the estimated tender amount in the form of his solvency certificate, and the tender will be awarded to private respondents, whereas, no such condition is contained in the NIT and it requires only the solvency certificate that has been submitted by the petitioner. The respondents have issued terms and conditions in the Notice Inviting Tender both English and Hindi, the petitioner has followed and submitted requisite documents as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Hindi, but there is some difference in both parts. Further, contention of the petitioner is that there is no automatic extension of powers given to the Tendering Authority without intimation to bidders and that the tendering authority is trying to award the tender to the private respondents showing their favoritism to the private respondent. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is non- transparency in the tender proceeding done by the tendering authority. The respondent Corporation has not opened the tender on 19-12-2024 and all of a sudden cancelled the bid on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited sufficient solvency certificate whereas, no such condition is mentioned in the terms and conditions of the tender. The petitioner fulfilled all the terms and conditions mentioned in Hindi part of the same, but there is difference in English and Hindi version of terms and conditions, for which there is no fault on the part of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3/Municipal Corporation showing copy of the NIT submits that in view of clause 3.8.1 of the same, as the solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner was less than 15% of amount of the tender, the petitioner firm is not entitled to participate, hence, the petitioner’s bid was rejected. 5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and considering that the petitioner could not specifically point out as the respondents authority have violated which conditions of the NIT while rejecting his tender and further the fact that in view of the clause 3.8.1 of the NIT, the petitioner’s bid was rejected, we do not find any substance in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. ‘ Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil