1 2025:CGHC:54315-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5787 of 2025 M/s Baijnath Agrawal A Grade Unicode Contractor, Registered Partnership Firm, Through Partner Saurabh Agrawal, S/o Late Hariom Agrawal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o School Road Baikunthpur, District Koriya C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Engineer (Tender Cell), Shivnath Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Water Resources Department Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Basin, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 5 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Baikunthpur, District Koriya C.G. 6 - Superintendent Engineer, Shyam Barnai Project Circle, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. 7 - M/s S.S. Infrastructure Company, Through Its Proprietor Santosh Choudhary Having Its Office At Ring Road Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.07 16:49:36 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, A.G. along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and set-aside the impugned communication dated 1/10/25 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner bid has been disqualified and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner bid in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities not to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs 2, 50, 000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty thousand) and also not to debar the petitioner from participating 3 in future tenders for period of one year and in eventuality of forfeiture of petitioner Earnest Money Deposit, the same be refunded to the petitioner along with interest @ 9 % per annum till payment of the amount in the interest of justice. 10.3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondents to not proceed further and issue work order to the private respondents in the interest of justice. 10.4) Alternatively, This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash if any work contract/ work order issued in favor of the private respondents by the respondent authorities in the interest of justice. 10.5) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.6) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent authorities floated a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 01.09.2025. Before the opening of the bid, the respondents, vide email dated 01.10.2025, informed the petitioner that he had been disqualified on the ground of furnishing misleading and incorrect information. Immediately thereafter, on 02.10.2025, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply through email, clarifying that the work in hand, i.e., Agreement No. 01/DL/2013-14 of W.R. Division Balrampur, had already been completed on 31.12.2022, for which the completion certificate was issued on 30.01.2023 and full 4 payment was duly made to the petitioner as evident from the respondent’s own letter dated 26.09.2025. However, subsequently, the said letter dated 26.09.2025 was revoked by the respondents vide communication dated 07.10.2025 on the ground that some amount in the said work contract had been withheld. After submission of the petitioner’s clarification, no further communication was made by the respondents to indicate whether the explanation tendered by the petitioner was found satisfactory or whether the disqualification continued to stand. The petitioner has further come to know that the respondents are now proceeding to forfeit the petitioner’s Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and, in consequence of the alleged disqualification, the petitioner’s pre-qualification certificate has been cancelled for one year, thereby debarring him from participating in future tenders during that period. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had submitted his bid on 16.09.2025, when the letter dated 26.09.2025 regarding full payment was valid and subsisting, and the revocation thereof took place only later, on 07.10.2025. As per the terms of the NIT, disqualification can only arise if false or misleading information is furnished in the bid; therefore, when the bid was submitted, no such false statement existed. Hence, this present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the State and its instrumentalities are bound by the mandate of Article 14 to act 5 fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness, even in the realm of contractual relations. The State cannot claim exemption from its public law duty to act justly and in good faith while dealing with private parties. When representations are made by the State, those who rely upon them and participate in public tenders have a legitimate expectation that such representations will be honoured. Therefore, when the facts of the present case are examined in light of this settled legal principle, it becomes manifest that the respondents were wholly unjustified in declaring the petitioner ineligible, as there was no misleading or false information furnished by him. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his bid on 16.09.2025, at which time the letter dated 26.09.2025 certifying completion of work and full payment was valid and subsisting, and the subsequent revocation of the said letter was done later, on 07.10.2025. As per the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender, disqualification can be imposed only if the bidder has furnished false or misleading information in the bid. Therefore, when the petitioner submitted his bid, there was no false statement or suppression of fact, and the subsequent revocation could not retrospectively render the information false. Hence, the disqualification of the petitioner’s bid, forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit, and consequential debarment from participation in future tenders for one year are patently illegal, perverse, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the settled provisions of law. 6 6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the action of the respondent authorities is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. It is contended that the petitioner was rightly disqualified as he had furnished incorrect and misleading information in his bid documents regarding the status of work in hand, since the payment against the earlier work order had not been fully released and certain amounts were still withheld, which clearly indicated that the said work was not fully completed as per record. It is further submitted that the decision of disqualification and consequent forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit was taken after due scrutiny by the competent authority, as per the contractual terms binding on both parties. The petitioner, having participated in the tender process with full knowledge of such conditions, is estopped from challenging the same merely because the outcome was unfavourable to him. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the main grievance of the petitioner is that despite his detailed representation/clarification submitted immediately after receipt of the disqualification communication, the same has not yet been decided by the respondent authorities and is still pending consideration. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate 7 that the said representation is finalized expeditiously by the competent authority. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.4 i.e. Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Basin, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), to consider and decide the representations / replies filed by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet