1 2025:CGHC:52668-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5312 of 2025 Bangodai Producer Company Ltd. An F P O Company Incorporate Under The Companies Act, 2018 With Registered Address C/o Annpoorna Devi Tanwar, Kshetramani, 41 Gursiya, Pondi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Fisheries Federation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Department Of Fisheries, Behind Telibandha Ps, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492006 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Director, Department Of Fisheries, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Aamir Khan S/o Imran Khan R/o Durga Nagar, Near Vidhya Niketan, Birgaon, Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shalini Gera and Ms. Anushree Rajput, Adv. For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. AG For Respondent No.1: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 29/10/2025 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.10.30 10:38:54 +0530 2 1. The instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned Notice Inviting Tenders dated 08.09.2025 with respect to fishing rights in the Hasdeo-Bango reservoir issued by the Respondent Federation; (ii) Direct the Respondent Federation to finalize the earlier tender process in accordance with law, by considering the Petitioner's bid in preference to that of Respondent no. 3 (the second highest bidder) in public interest, the highest bidder having already been disqualified; (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Federation to award the tender for fishing rights over the Hasdeo-Bango Reservoir in favour of the Petitioner Company, in accordance with applicable rules and conditions;] (iv) Pass any other Order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove..” 2. The petitioner, a Farmer Producer Organization (FPO) comprising displaced tribal fisherfolk from the Minimata Hasdeo Bango Dam area, has filed this petition seeking cancellation of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 08.09.2025 issued by Respondent No.1 for fishing rights in the Hasdeo Bango reservoir. Earlier, a tender process initiated on 29.05.2025 for the same purpose was already underway, in which the petitioner had participated along with other qualified bidders. The petitioner submitted a bid of ₹31,05,527 and, being composed of displaced fisherfolk, was entitled to a 10% concession under the tender conditions, making its effective bid ₹34,16,080. On opening of bids on 15.07.2025, the petitioner ranked third, or second after applying the 3 concession, while the highest bidder, Smt. Sato Kumari Nag, failed to execute the contract, leading to forfeiture of her security deposit. Despite the earlier process reaching this stage, the respondents issued a fresh NIT on 08.09.2025 without assigning any reason, giving rise to the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities without considering the bid submitted by the petitioner and without following the basic principles of natural justice cancelled the entire tender process and issued the fresh NIT in an illegal and arbitrary manner. In fact, after non-taking interest by the H1 bidder, the authorities ought to have issued the work order in favour of the petitioner because after the H1 bidder, he is qualified on the ground that he has quoted higher rate. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Federation would submit that in the subject tender process, one Smt. Sato Kumar Nag declared as highest bidder (H1) with annual lease price of Rs. 60,00,000/-; respondent No.3 herein Amir Khan was the second highest bidder (H2) with annual lease price of Rs. 31,11,129/-, whereas, the petitioner found as H3 with annual lease price of Rs. 31,05,527/-. he would submit that under sub-clause (6) of Clause 1.1.5 of 2022 Policy, the petitioner is not entitled for 10% concession as there is difference in bid price between H1 and H2, H3 is more than 49.15% i.e. almost 50% and it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has quoted the price with a difference of 10% from the rate quoted by H1, which may cause whopping loss approximately 346.66 lacs to the exchequer. According to the learned counsel after considering all the aspects of the matter, the fresh NIT has been floated. He would submit that in the said tender process, the respondent 4 No.3 herein has participated with a bid price of Rs. 50 lacs and declared him as H2. However, the petitioner herein has chosen not to participate in the fresh NIT for the reason best known to him. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. A bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents reveals that in the subject tender process, one Smt. Sato Kumar Nag was declared as the highest bidder (H1) with an annual lease price of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Respondent No.3, Amir Khan, was the second-highest bidder (H2) with an annual lease price of Rs. 31,11,129/-, whereas the petitioner was found to be H3 with an annual lease price of Rs. 31,05,527/-. 7. Sub-clause (6) of Clause 1.1.5 of the 2022 Policy states as under: “6. पंजीकृ त मछु आ सहकारी समतय / मछु आ समूह को दा म भाग लेे पर दा म ा अ"कतम दा दर म 10 तशत छू ट की पा&ता होगी 'जके काय()े& म उ+ जलाशय / बैराज ./0त ह1।” 8. Even after considering the aforesaid provision, the petitioner is not entitled to a 10% concession, as the difference between the bid prices of H1 and H3 is more than 49.15%, i.e., almost 50%. It is also not the petitioner’s case that his bid was within 10% of the rate quoted by H1. Apart from this, if the petitioner was permitted to execute the said work, it would result in a substantial loss of approximately Rs. 346.66 lakhs to the public exchequer. 5 Considering all aspects of the matter, a fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued, which cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 9. It is also noteworthy that in the said fresh tender process, respondent No.3 participated with a bid price of Rs. 50,00,000/- and was declared H2. However, the petitioner chose not to participate in the fresh NIT for reasons best known to him. 10. It is further evident from the record that after the failure of the highest bidder to execute the contract, the respondent authorities, keeping in mind the significant variation in bid values and in order to ensure transparency, revenue maximization, and fair competition, decided to cancel the earlier tender and issue a fresh NIT. Such action, in the considered opinion of this Court, falls within the administrative discretion of the tendering authority and cannot be termed arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner’s claim for a 10% concession under Clause 1.1.5(6) of the 2022 Policy is misconceived, as such concession cannot be applied in a manner that results in substantial loss to the public exchequer. The purpose of the said provision is to encourage participation of local fisherfolk cooperatives within a reasonable price range, not to justify acceptance of a bid nearly 50% lower than the highest valid bid. 12. The petitioner, having chosen not to participate in the subsequent tender process despite having the opportunity, cannot now challenge the same process, particularly when no mala fides or violation of statutory provisions have been demonstrated. 6 13. It is a settled principle of law that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Unless the action of the tendering authority is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or actuated by extraneous considerations, the Court will refrain from interference in such commercial matters. 14. In the present case, no such infirmity has been demonstrated in the issuance of the fresh NIT dated 08.09.2025. The decision appears to be the result of due consideration of financial implications and policy guidelines, aimed at safeguarding public interest. 15. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order passed on 10-10-2025 stands vacated. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Amardeep