1 2025:CGHC:833-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 9 of 2025 1 - Deftech And Greenindia Private Limited, Through Authorized Signatory/ Director Mr. Madhukar Mokha S/o Shri Mohan Lal Mokha Aged About 51 Years R/o 37, Indira Colony Phalodi Jodhpur 324301 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry Of Home Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director General Of Police Police Headquarters Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Assistant Inspector General Of Police Police Headquarters Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate through virtual mode along with Ms. Smriti Singh For Respondent/ State : Mr. Prafull Bharat, Advocate General along with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate 2 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07 .01.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16/12/2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the purchase order/ supply order dated 27/02/2023 has been unilaterally cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs:- A. To set aside the impugned cancellation of the purchase order/ supply order dated 16/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed under the authority of Director General of Police- State of C.G. B. To direct the respondent – Director General of Police to release the money/ clear the bill/ perform its part, against the purchase order and agreement dated 27.02.2023 C. To grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act, 2023. He participated in the tender process issued by the respondent No. 2 on 01/02/2022 by which the bids were invited for supply of 64 NVG Compatible Helipad Lights. Vide letter dated 24/06/2022, the petitioner was informed that the technical bid would not be opened due to receipt of only two bids and it could be opened on 27/06/2022 at 4 pm. In compliance of the conditions of tender, the petitioner had submitted the sample of the specified items NVG Compatible Helipad Light on 01/08/2022. The said sample was included the charger, operation manual and carry bag under the specification 3 of the conditions of the tender. Vide its letter dated 24/02/2023, the petitioner was declared as an eligible entity for financial biding and when the financial bid was opened on 25/02/2023, the petitioner was found as the successful bidder. The respondent issued a supply order on 27/02/2023 directing the petitioner to supply 64 NVG Compatible Helipad Lights at the agreed rate of Rs. 41,071.42 per unit amounting to a total of Rs. 31,01,713.92 inclusive of GST. Persuant to the supply order, the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 27/02/2023 and the petitioner has deposited 10% of the total contract value as performance security as required under Clause 3.25.1 of the tender document. In compliance of the supply order, the petitioner delivered the required goods vide E Way’s dated 13/05/2023 and delivered the 64 NVG Compatible Helipad Lights within its time frame. Since, the respondents have not released its payment, on 15/09/2023, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent authorities requesting for payment of the bills but he could not receive any response from them. On 13/01/2024, the petitioner sent a reminder and ultimately send his representation on 29/08/2024 to the Secretary Department of Home, Chhattisgarh Government. 3. Instead of settling the petitioner’s grievance and releasing the payments, the respondents have issued a letter dated 16/12/2024 by which they unilaterally cancelled the purchase order. This letter was issued by the respondents without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is against the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations and thereafter, the respondents have floated a fresh tender for the same product even prior to the cancellation of the present tender which was in 4 favour of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant petition raising his grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite having the remedy to provide opportunity to supply of correct goods, if the respondents have found any discrepancy in the goods supplied and the specification for which the tender was issued then the respondent authorities should have granted opportunity to replace the same within the prescribed time but they directly cancelled the said purchase order which is violative of the principles of natural justice and depriving the petitioner of fair chance to present his case. He would further submit that the respondents action contravene the public policy and fair business practices. The arbitrary action of the respondents undermines the government’s efforts to support startups and MSMEs causing undue financial and reputational harm to the petitioner, therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 16/12/2024 by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner for Rechargeable SMF Lead Acid Battery : 12v, 7Ah X 2 Nos., or more or Rechargeable Li-ion Battery (11.1V) but the petitioner had supply the 02 Qty, with 6 Ah rechareable Li Battery only 300 battery charging cycles. He would further submit that, although, the petitioner had submitted the sample under the specification at the time of tender process but had not supplied the goods under the specification. He would further submit that Clause 3.3 of the tender condition refers for disqualification that if the bidder has made misleading or false representation in the forms, statements and attachments submitted, he may be disqualified. As per the Clause 3.4 (ii) of the conditions, the payment of total supply value shall be released after successful delivery and receiving 5 satisfactory report by the committee and as per sub Clause (iv) of Clause 3.4, the payment will be made only after supplying the entire quantity prescribed for the material of the tender. It is also submitted by him that as per Clause 5.12.1, the purchaser shall have the right to inspect the work or get it inspected by his agent or any authorized officer at any stage. He would further submit that from Clause 11 of the agreement executed between the parties, the purchaser has right to forfeit security deposit in whole or part or impose such penalty as the purchaser may deem fit and recovered the same from the security deposit if any breach of terms and conditions of the agreement is found. He would also submit that in the present case, the goods supplied by the petitioner was not found satisfactory as per its specification required by the respondents and as per the specification of the tender. Therefore, under the condition No. 11 of the agreement dated 27/02/2023, they have cancelled the purchase order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. It is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner was awarded contract to supply of 64 NVG Compatible helipads Lights and the agreement was executed between the parties on 27/02/2023. The said goods were to be supplied within 90 days from the execution of the agreement and the time would be extended only once with 2% per month penalty. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had supplied the tendered goods on 13/05/2023 at Central Store, 4th Batalian, Mana, Raipur and he supplied the entire quantity of the goods. As per the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that supply goods were inspected by their authorized officer and on 6 inspection it was found that the supplied goods were not as per its specification mentioned in the tender document. 8. From perusal of the Clause 13 of the agreement dated 27/02/2023, it reflects that if any deficiency is found in the supplied goods with that of its specification approved in the tender, an opportunity to be provided to the supplier to replace the same within the period prescribed for completion of the order without extra cause. Clause 13 of the agreement dated 27/02/2023 is relevant here to be reproduced:- “13. In case goods other than those of the approved specification/ quality are supplied, they will be rejected and will have to be replaced within the period prescribed for the completion of the order by the supplier without extra cost. Any loss caused to the department or any expenses incurred by the department in this shall be recoverable from the supplier.” 9. At this stage, learned Advocate General appearing for the State has also not disputed that the purchase order was directly cancelled because the petitioner has not represent property in the situation. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering Clause 13 of the agreement dated 27/02/2023 executed between the parties, the respondent ought to have provide an opportunity to the petitioner to replace the substandard/ deficient goods if it is not found under its specification given any tender form and the purchase order cannot cancel in such unilateral manner without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or opportunity as provided under Clause 13 of agreement dated 27/02/2023. 11. in view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court is of the view that the respondent shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify its mistake and to correct the same within the stipulated period as provided under 7 Clause 13 of the agreement dated 27/02/2023 and provide an opportunity to put up his defence before passing any order as per the terms and conditions of the tender as well as the agreement dated 27/02/2023. 12. In view of the above the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1) is set aside/ quashed. 13. The respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with Clause 13 of the agreement dated 27/02/2023 executed between the parties and to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika