1 2025:CGHC:55278-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5942 of 2025 M/s Bajrang Agrawal Through Its Proprietor Bajrang Agrawal S/o Late Banarsi Das Agrawal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ramniwas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering Mantralya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chief Engineer Department Of Public Health Engineering Mantralya Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 13/11/2025 1. The instant Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.14 10:28:47 +0530 2 “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to inform/communicate about the reason for disqualification in pre qualification round of the Tender process, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to provide the information by which experience has been changed for the financial year changed 5 to 10 years. 10.3 Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender of the petitioner has been illegally rejected at the stage of pre-qualification without assigning any reason or indicating the circumstances under which such rejection was made. It is contended that no communication or information was ever furnished to the petitioner regarding the rejection of the tender which had been invited by the Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Raipur. It is further submitted that on obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, it was revealed that in the previous years 2016 and 2019, the eligibility criteria prescribed by the department required only five years of experience. However, in the present case, the tender condition was arbitrarily amended on 10.04.2023 enhancing the experience criteria from five years to ten years without any approval of the competent authority or proper intimation to the intending bidders. Such alteration, it is urged, has restricted participation in the tender process and adversely affected fair competition. It is also submitted that due to the said change in eligibility norms, the petitioner was disqualified and could not participate in other tenders, thereby suffering monetary loss. It is thus contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s tender 3 in pre-qualification, without assigning reasons and without following due process, is arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel, per contra, submits that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the tender process in question, as he did not even participate in the said tender. It is contended that mere procurement of tender documents or expression of interest without submission of a valid bid does not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner to question the terms or outcome of the tender. The respondent authorities have acted strictly in accordance with the prevailing tender conditions, and the eligibility criteria were duly published and made known to all intending bidders prior to the last date of submission. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having chosen not to participate under the prescribed conditions, cannot now turn around and challenge the same on the ground of alleged arbitrariness or change in experience criteria. The State counsel therefore submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold for want of locus standi as well as absence of any violation of legal or constitutional rights. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the pleadings and submissions, it is evident that the petitioner has not participated in the tender process in question. The petitioner’s grievance essentially pertains to the modification of the eligibility criteria enhancing the experience requirement from five years to ten years and the alleged non- 4 communication of reasons for rejection in the pre-qualification stage. However, since the petitioner did not submit a valid bid under the notified tender conditions, he cannot be said to be an “aggrieved person” so as to maintain a writ petition challenging the said process. 6. It is well settled that a person who has not participated in a tender process has no locus-standi to question the terms or procedure of the tender. The scope of judicial review in contractual or tender matters is extremely limited and is confined only to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions, none of which are made out in the present case. 7. The record further reflects that the tender conditions, including the amended eligibility criteria, were duly published and made available to all intending bidders. The petitioner, having chosen not to participate under the prescribed terms, cannot later claim to be prejudiced by the same. The plea regarding non-intimation of rejection or alleged arbitrariness in changing eligibility norms is thus untenable. 8. In view of the above facts and settled legal principles, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the tender process or to issue any direction as sought by the petitioner. The writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable for want of locus standi, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Jyoti