1 2025:CGHC:59101-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6315 of 2025 M/s Bombay Integrated Security (India) Ltd. Having Its Registered O(ce Branch O(ce At Crystal Areade, 210-Block A, Lodhi Para, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, (Atal Nagar), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary / Additional Chief Secretary, Directorate Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Dept., Indravati Bhawan (Block-2), Thrid Floor / Mantralaya Complex, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited (Markfed) Through - General Manager, Tower C, 6th Floor, Cbd Commercial Complex, Sector-21, Nava Raipur (Atal Nagar), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akshat Tiwari, and Ms. Anu Mishra, Advocates. For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General and Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/12/2025 1 Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akshat Tiwari, and Ms. Anu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2 By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “A. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the termination order dated 21.11.2025; B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to reinstate the concerned Data Entry Operators in accordance with the agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3; C. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed /t and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner Company is a private limited company engaged in the business of Man Power supply to di<erent sectors on contracts or agreement with terms and conditions in various part of India. The respondent No. 3 under the Department of Chhattisgarh State Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, =oated a tender on GEM Portal on 28.07.2025 bearing 3 Tender No. GEM/2025/B/6505648 for appointing an agency for providing of man power for deployment of Data Entry operator for paddy procurement at procurement center level in four separate groups namely, G1, G2, G3, and G4. The Request for Proposal (for short, the RFP) further enabled the bidders to participate in multiple groups with a requirement of deposit of amount Rs. 15 Lacs as Earnest Money Deposit for each group i.e. total of Rs. 60 Lacs. Accordingly, the petitioner participated by submitting the EMD/ BID security in all four groups and was allotted the tender work for Groups G1 and G3. Upon depositing the EMD, the work orders were issued by the respondents on 10.10.2025 bearing work order No. So. No./MKT/DEO/3515/2025 for group G1 and So.No./MKT/DEO/3514/2025 for group G3. Subsequently, on 14.10.2025, the GEM Market Place Contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 on GEM Portal for groups G1 and G3. Pursuant to the GEM agreements, a notiDcation dated 15.10.2025 bearing number No/Marketing/25-26/3589/2025 was issued by the respondent. No. 3 regarding employment and training of data entry operators of be completed till 31.10.2025 through Service Provider/Outsourcing for Paddy procurement at Paddy Procurement Centre/Society in Kharif Marketing season 2025-26. On the same day, the respondent No. 2 issued a revised instructions under Clauses 11.3.1 and 11.3.2 of the Paddy Procurement Policy for Kharif Marketing season 2025-26. Pursuant to the circular dated 15.10.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2, the respondent. No. 3 issued another circular on 23.10.2025 directing that the Data Entry Operators (DEOs) be appointed for a period of six months seasonal period in the year 2025 and then again for a six-months seasonal period in the year 2026 on a Dxed honorarium of Rs. 18,420 per month. Furthermore, the circular 4 authorised the District Collector to review procurement centres, reassign DEOs in cases of irregularities, and deploy them to other blocks as required. Thus, the earlier outsourcing-based mechanism stood allegedly superseded, and the petitioner was required to arrange for DEOs strictly in accordance with the revised policy instructions. 4 Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that clause 3.12 of the RFP required the successful bidder to furnish bank guarantee by way of performance security equivalent to 10% of the total contract value. Accordingly, on 16.10.2025 and 17.10.2025, performance bank Guarantees were issued by the petitioner for both the groups for a total amount of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- for Group G1 and Rs. 1,22,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 entered into agreements in pursuance of the Tender allotment for groups G1 and G3. Another circular was issued on 11.11.2025 wherein, the directive of circular dated 23.10.2025 was reversed and, it was now directed that DEOs shall be engaged by Government (through outsourcing or any other means) in the society/procurement centres, for which work orders have already been issued to various service providers, including the petitioner, and with the further stipulation that the number of DEOs and duration of deployment may be increased or decreased as required; accordingly, nodal o(cers of the District Cooperative Central Banks and the Apex Bank have been directed to immediately arrange DEOs through the said service providers. On 14.11.2025, the petitioner engaged and deployed data entry operators across 18 Districts under Groups G1 and 03. 5 Mr. Shrivastava further submits that the agreement entered into pursuant to the tender process was abruptly and arbitrarily terminated by 5 respondent No. 3 without issuing any notice to the petitioner, vide letter dated 21.11.2025 (issued on 25.11.2025 in the evening hours). The said termination order records that the society managers and data entry operators working in cooperative societies had issued a memorandum dated 24.10.2025, intimating an indeDnite strike/non-cooperation movement to press certain demands before the Government, a copy of which was stated to be available with respondent No. 3. It was further mentioned that, in view of the said situation, respondent No. 3 had circulated details of certain outsourcing service providers for arranging Data Entry Operators in procurement centres/society of the State for the Kharif Marketing Year 2025-26. However, once the District informed that the strike had ended and that arrangements for Data Entry Operators were required in be made strictly in accordance with sub-clauses 11.3.1 and 11.32 of clause 11.3 of the Paddy Procurement Policy for Kharif Marketing Year 2025-26, the respondent No. 3 unilaterally cancelled the work orders issued to the said service providers as well as the contracts executed with them, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the arbitrary termination, the petitioner made a representation on 27.11.2025 to the respondent. No. 3 however, the said representation is pending and no response has been received till date. 6 Mr. Shrivastava submits that the impugned termination order dated 21.11.2025 is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, having been declared successful in the tender process for Groups G1 and G3 was issued letters of intent, work orders, formal agreements and GEM marketplace contracts, all of which created binding contractual and legitimate expectations. The sudden cancellation of the contract without any rational basis or justiDcation re=ects colourable exercise of power. The impugned 6 termination order is fundamentally arbitrary and stands vitiated on account of complete violation of the principles of natural justice. At no stage prior to the termination was any show cause notice issued, nor was the petitioner granted any opportunity of hearing, explanation or even a minimal prior intimation regarding any alleged grounds warranting such drastic action. The tender process initiated on 28.07.2025 and the contract awarded to the petitioner on 10.10.2025 pursuant thereto were in no manner a<ected by, or contingent upon, the alleged indeDnite strike/non-cooperation movement of Society managers and/or DEOs that started on 05.11.2025. The said strike was an internal administrative issue of the cooperative society and had no bearing whatsoever on the validity, subsistence, or performance of the tender contract. Consequently, the mere fact that the strike later came to an end could not, by any legal or contractual rationale, constitute a ground for terminating the contract duly awarded to the petitioner through a competitive bidding process. The impugned termination, premised solely on the cessation of a strike unrelated to the tender conditions or the petitioner's obligations, is therefore arbitrary, irrational and unsustainable. 7 Mr. Shrivastava next submits that the alleged indeDnite strike/non- cooperation movement by Society managers and/or DEOs was initiated on 05.11.2025 Le, subsequent to the completion of tender and bidding process and execution of agreement between the parties. Therefore, the said strike has no bearing the tender process and therefore, termination based on the outcome of the alleged strike is irrational, ultra vires and bad in law. The sole basis cited in the impugned termination order- namely, the conclusion of an alleged indeDnite strike/non-cooperation movement by society managers and DEOs does not fall within, nor 7 correspond to, any of the termination contingencies expressly stipulated under Clause 6 (Termination of Bidder) of the agreements. The contractual termination clause exhaustively enumerates the circumstances in which Respondent No. 3 (CG MARKFED) may lawfully terminate the contract. A bare reading of the said clause makes it abundantly clear that the ending of a strike by Society Managers or DEOs, which is an internal administrative factor wholly unrelated to the performance or conduct of the petitioner, is not a ground for termination under the contract. The impugned cancellation order, therefore, su<ers from complete absence of any contractual basis, is ultra vires the explicit termination framework mutually agreed between the parties, and is liable to be struck down legal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. The petitioner, in strict compliance with the directives of respondent No. 3, deployed Data Entry Operators across 18 districts on 14.11.2025, incurring signiDcant Dnancial, logistical, and administrative costs. The respondents not only accepted the deployment without objection but also beneDted from the services arranged by the petitioner. Yet within merely a week of such deployment, the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned termination arbitrarily, notwithstanding that the contract awarded pursuant to the tender explicitly provided for a 12 month duration from the date of commencement, which remains unexpired. The RFP was issued for a tender period of 180 days, however, subsequent to allotment of the tender, the tender period was extended to a period of 12 months wherein the DEOs were to be appointed for a period of six months seasonal period in the year 2025 and then again for a six months seasonal period in the year 2026 on a Dxed honorarium of Rs. 18,420/- per month. The respondents' actions constitute a clear breach of contractual obligations and improper exercise of of administrative power, 8 resulting in substantial Dnancial prejudice to the petitioner, including exposure to forfeiture of performance bank guarantees totaling Rs.2,48,00,000/- which were submitted strictly in accordance with Clause 3.12 of the RFP. The State is not entitled to act unfairly or to the detriment of a successful tenderer after having received signiDcant contractual securities. The tender was allotted after the petitioner satisDed the hefty pre-qualiDcation as well as technical qualiDcation requirement of the tender bid and thereafter, depositing the requisite EMD amount of Rs. 30 Lacs for both the groups as well as Bank Guarantees, thereby completely satisfying the necessary requirements of a competitive tender process. Hence, the arbitrary and unilateral termination is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned termination order dated 21.11.2025 has not been o(cially communicated to the petitioner or the concerned DEOs till date, however, the termination order has been brought into e<ect, thereby completely violating the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the settled principles of natural justice. 8 In support of his contentions, he places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & Others {2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682}, M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. Jabalpur v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd. & Others {(2023) 2 SCC 703}, Union of India & Others v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. {(2011) 5 SCC 697}. 9 On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that since clause 5.29 of the RFP provides for a mechanism for resolution of the dispute, the petitioner ought to have taken recourse to the said clause 9 and only thereafter, if needed, should have approached this Court. Clause 5.29 provides that the bidder shall make every e<ort to resolve amicably by direct informal negotiations, any disagreement, or disputes, arising between them under or in connection with the contract. It further provides that if after thirty days from the date of commencement of such direct informal negotiations, the CGMARKFED and the bidder have been unable to resolve amicably a contract dispute, either party may require that the dispute be referred for resolution to the formal mechanism as provided under clause (3). In case of a dispute or di<erence arising between the CGMARKFED and the bidder relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this contract, such dispute or di<erence shall be referred to the award of two Arbitrators, one Arbitrator to be nominated by the CGMARKFED and the other to be nominated by the bidder or in case of the said Arbitrators not agreeing, then to the award of an Umpire to be appointed by the Arbitrators in writing before proceeding with reference and in case the Arbitrators cannot agree to the Umpire, he may be nominated by the Secretary, Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi. The award of the Arbitrators and in the even of their not agreeing, of the Umpire appointed by them or by the Secretary, Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi, shall be Dnal and binding on the parties. 10 Mr. Sharma further draws attention of this Court to clause 11.3.1 of the circular dated 15.10.2025 issued by the State Government which states as under: “[kjhQ foi.ku o"kZ 2025&26 ds fy, lfefr;kas esa MkVk ,UVªh vkijsVj dk fu;kstu lfefr;ksa ds ek/;e ls 6 ekg ds fy, fd;k tk, ,oa bUgsa 6 ekg ds fy, ekuns; :- 18420@& izfrekg iznku fd;k tk,A blls vfrfjDr vof/k gsrq lfefr;ka Lo;a ds lk/kuksa ls fu;kstu dj ldsaxhA” 10 Mr. Sharma submits that if the MARKFED does not require the services of the petitioner, then the petitioner may claim damages from the MARKFED but he cannot claim that the manpower supplied by the petitioner only would do the data entry work as required by the MARKFED. Basically, the petitioner is seeking an order of injunction which cannot be granted by this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11 Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3- CGMARKFED submits that the agreement (Annexure P/9) entered into between the petitioner, at page No. 137 of the writ petition, also provides that the arbitration clause as provided in the RPF is a part of the agreement as the agreement speciDcally states that the documents, viz. Tender Document No. Tender No. GEM/2025/B/6505648 dated 28.07.2025 corrigendum(s) and clariDcations issued by CGMARKFED on the tender, shall be deemed to form and be read and construed as part of the agreement. Hence, the petitioner could have taken recourse to the said clause and as such, this petition may be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. Mr. Tiwari further draws attention of this Court to clause 19 “Service level agreement” and clause (c) of the same states that the number of data entry operators to be deployed shall be as per the actual requirement and subject to change as per the instruction of the government. The authority reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of data entry operator at any stage during the contract period, based on operational needs, without assigning any reason. 12 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11 13 The crux of the matter is that pursuant to the tender =oated by the CGMARKFED, the petitioner participated in the said tender process and was awarded tender work for Groups G1 and G3. He completed all the formalities, deposited the EMD, furnished Bank Guarantees and thereafter deployed manpower and other paraphernalia and invested a substantial amount for the work of Data Entry however, according to the petitioner, abruptly and arbitrarily the said agreement has been terminated vide order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P/12) by the respondent-CGMARKFED as the strike of the Data Entry Operators, working earlier had called o< their strike. The said act of terminating the agreement has caused huge Dnancial loss to the petitioner. 14 On a query being made by this Court to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-CGMARKFED, with respect to the mode and manner in which the loss, if any, sustained by the petitioner shall be compensated to the petitioner, it is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that they are in process of returning the EMD to the parties which were allotted the work order and out of the four service providers, the EMD and the Performance Guarantee in respect of two of them have already been returned. The EMD and the performance guarantee deposited by the petitioner shall be released in favour of the petitioner. 15 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that the services of the petitioner for supply of manpower for the Data Entry work was taken by the CGMARKFED as there was a strike by the existing Data Entry Operators who were on strike. The strike was called o< and as such the services of the petitioner were no longer required and as such, the CGMARKFED deemed it appropriate to cancel the work order 12 issued and the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the CGMARKFED. 16 Clause 5.29 of the RFP, which is the part of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the CGMARKFED, clearly provides for arbitration clause in case of any disagreement, or disputes arising between them under or in connection with the contract. In the said process, one Arbitrator each has to be appointed by the bidder and the CGMARKFED and in case the Arbitrators are not agreeing, then an Umpire can be appointed by the Arbitrators before proceeding with the reference. The petitioner has not taken recourse to the said proceeding. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases cited (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the fact of the matter is that dispute in the present case is such, which may better be resolved through the arbitration process. If the respondent- CGMARKFED does not require the services of the petitioner and/or his manpower, then this Court cannot compel the CGMARKFED to continue with the services of the petitioner, however, the petitioner may claim damages/ compensation for the loss, if any, caused to it on account of deployment of manpower in the societies run by the CGMARKFED. The learned counsel for the respondent-CGMARKFED has also submitted that they are ready to refund the EMD and release the performance guarantee in favour of the petitioner. 17 It is well settled that an alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an e(cacious alternate remedy is provided by law. This Court does not have the requisite expertise to ascertain as to what is the 13 actual loss sustained by the petitioner when the order dated 21.11.2025 has been passed by the respondent-CGMARKFED, and the dispute involved in the present matter is more of a contractual dispute, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the petitioner should take recourse to the alternate dispute resolution mechanism as provided in clause 5.29 of the RFP or may approach the competent jurisdictional Civil Court. 18 In view of the above discussion, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.08 18:03:38 +0530