1 2025:CGHC:57692-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6207 of 2025 M/s Anil Nathani Through Its Proprietor Shri Anil Nathani, Aged About 55 Years, S/o Shri Motilal Nathani, Having Its Registered Office At M.G. Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Executive Engineer Bilaspur Municipal Corporation Project Cell, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. M/s Ramgopal Somani Through Its Partner Varun Somani, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Shri Ramgopal Somani, Having Its Registered Office At Tehsil Road, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. R.S. Marhas along with Ms. Shweta Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.28 10:17:35 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27/11/2025 1. Heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Dy. A. G. for respondent/ state and Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate along with Ms. Shweta Mishra, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following relief:- “1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly order to set aside the disqualification order issued by the Respondent authority via letter dated 3/10/2025 (Annexure P/1). 2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly order the Respondent authority to reconsider the bid submitted by petitioner for the 3rd call afresh based on its own merits. 3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-firm, engaged in construction and electrical engineering works, has approached this Court challenging the arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable disqualification of its bids in the third call of the tender issued by the Executive Engineer, Bilaspur Municipal Corporation, vide letter dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P/1). It is the 3 petitioner’s case that despite fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria, its bids were rejected on untenable grounds, while the tender was improperly awarded to the private respondent, who allegedly suffers from similar or even more serious deficiencies than those attributed to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the unequal and unfair treatment meted out during the tender evaluation process, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the tender process for street-light installation work amounting to 548.27 lakhs. The first call was cancelled and the ₹ petitioner submitted its bid for the second call with all requisite documents. Though clarifications were sought and duly furnished, the petitioner’s bid was declared “Non-Responsive” on grounds beyond the tender requirements, and no bidder including the private respondent, was found eligible. Counsel submits that after the second call failed, a third call was issued with altered eligibility conditions. The petitioner once again submitted a complete bid with fresh rental agreements and full documentation. However, the petitioner was again declared “Not Qualified” on the grounds that ownership documents for leased machinery were not provided and that certain staff documents such as PF/ESI challans and salary slips were not enclosed, though such documents were never required under the tender. No opportunity of clarification was granted, and the rejection was mechanical and 4 predetermined. It is urged that the petitioner is the lowest bidder (L1) in the third call and would have been entitled to the contract. Meanwhile, the private respondent, who suffers from similar and more serious deficiencies, including last-minute rental agreements and contradictory staff records, was nevertheless declared qualified, indicating bias and arbitrariness. Counsel submits that the respondent’s actions are violative of Article 14 and the principles of fairness and transparency in tender processes, warranting interference of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 opposes the submissions advanced and submits that the work order has already been issued and the work has commenced. He further contends that Clause 3 of the communication dated 22.08.2025, seeking clarification regarding PQ submissions, clearly required bidders to furnish attested ownership/lease/hire agreements for major equipment in accordance with Annexure–5 and Annexure– 10. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner’s bid was rightly rejected vide order dated 03.10.2025, as the petitioner failed to submit RC books, purchase bills, or GST invoices of the equipment owners, and in the absence of such documents, verification of mandatory equipment could not be established. The contention of the petitioner that such documents were not required is untenable, as even in the case of rented machinery, proof of ownership of the equipment is essential. He thus submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. In case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the owner or the employer of a project having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. 8. In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain2,, the Apex Court has observed as under: “22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant 1 (2016) 16 SCC 818 2 (2022) 6 SCC 127 6 in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 9. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the tender process or the decision of the respondent-authority. The record clearly indicates that the petitioner failed to furnish the mandatory documents required for verification of major equipment, including RC books, purchase bills, or GST invoices of the owners of the machinery, as specifically sought through Clause 3 of the clarification letter dated 22.08.2025 and as required under Annexure-5 and Annexure-10. The petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that such documents were unnecessary when the tender conditions themselves mandated proof of ownership even in cases of leased or hired machinery. The respondent-authority, therefore, acted within the scope of the 7 tender conditions in declaring the petitioner “Not Qualified” vide order dated 03.10.2025. Moreover, the work order has already been issued and the work has commenced, and no mala fides or arbitrariness is established so as to warrant judicial interference in matters pertaining to commercial tenders. 10. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti