1 2025:CGHC:1365-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 94 of 2025 1 - M/s Rudra Construction Through Proprietor Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Nageshwar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 269, Near Durga Manch Shiv Nagar, Purai Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban and Rural Administration Development Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Risali, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Risali, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Bharatiya Security Services Through Proprietor Meena Patel, Office At B-44 Near Shiv Mandir In Front of Jayaswal Kirana Store Karamchari Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - ELEEMech Technocrats Through Proprietor Mohammed Zahher Office At QTR-4-A, Street-16 Sector-1 Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- 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 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 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. 4/PWD/RISALI/2024 (First Call) System Tender No.161916 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 the 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 Notice namely Scope of Work for cleaning of ditches, drains, roads, etc. for Wards No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 22, 23 and 24 situated in 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 System Tender No.16196. 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, the petitioner alongwith other bidders was present before the 3 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, the process is still being shown as incomplete in the departmental website and as of now the prescribed advertised schedule stands lapsed and new schedule is required 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 on 23-12-2024. 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 not be able to acquire the tender because he not deposited 15% of the estimated tender amount in his solvency certificate, and the tender will be awarded to private respondents, whereas no such condition is prescribed in the terms and conditions of the tender. 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 difference in conditions part in Hindi and English parts of the NIT regarding submission of solvency certificate. 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 4 trying to award the tender to the private respondents showing their favoritism to the private respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the NIT of the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure-P/1, but no reason has been disclosed by the Municipal Corporation rejecting his NIT. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3/Municipal Corporation states that a per clause 27 of the NIT, the petitioner is required to comply with the condition and to submit affidavit under clause 6 in fyQkQk&Þ[kß, but the petitioner has not met out the said requirement, hence, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and that the petitioner has not shown any irregularity committed by the respondent authority while rejecting the petitioner’s bid and further that the requirement of aforesaid clause has not been fulfilled, we do not find any substance in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil