1 2025:CGHC:57668-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6201 of 2025 M/s Agrasen Traders Through Sole Proprietor, Sourabh Agrawal S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Main Road Kathghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Through Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Council Champa Through Chief Municipal O/cer, Municipal Council Champa District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.28 12:01:21 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents/State :Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 :Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27/11/2025 1. Heard Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents as well as Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. The present writ petition has been 7lled for following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the NIT No.2230 / Water Section / Municipal Council / 2025-2026 dated 24.10.25 *oated by the respondent no.3 / Municipal Council, Champa in the interest of justice. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petitioner to participate in the NIT No.2230 / 3 Water Section / Municipal Council / 2025-2026 dated 24.10.25 *oated by the respondent no.3 / Municipal Council, Champa, in the interest of justice. 10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that denial to give tender form to the petitioner by respondent no.3 is arbitrary and illegal and further direct the respondent no.3 to cancel the NIT No.2230 / Water Section / Municipal Council / 2025-2026 dated 24.10.25 and to invite fresh NIT after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all competitive bidders. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Agrasen Traders, a class ‘C’ contractor registered with the Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh. The Municipal Council, Champa, <oated NIT No. 2230 dated 24.10.2025 for the supply and installation of a 70 HP motor pump and star-delta starters at the Filter Plant, Ward No.13. The petitioner applied for the tender on 17.11.2025 after submitting all required documents, including a notarized a/davit stating he was never blacklisted 4 and had completed the work timely. However, the tender form was denied orally on the ground that the a/davit did not comply with the prescribed format, without any written communication. The petitioner had previously successfully carried out similar works in other municipalities, and a prior NIT for the same work had been canceled due to a single bidder. The petitioner has 7led the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the Municipal Council in refusing to supply the tender form is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of fair play, particularly when the petitioner ful7lls all the eligibility conditions prescribed in the NIT dated 24.10.2025. It is argued that the rejection of the petitioner’s documents on the hyper- technical ground that the witness’s signature in the a/davit appeared below the veri7cation is wholly unsustainable, especially when no other defect was pointed out and the petitioner had duly complied with the substantive requirements. Relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, counsel submits that 5 insigni7cant technical irregularities of no consequence can be waived and cannot be made a ground to deprive an eligible contractor from participation. It is further submitted that refusal to issue the tender form prior to the bid opening date re<ects mala 7de intention, despite the petitioner having successfully executed similar works in various departments, thereby rendering the impugned action arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to settled legal principles. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel and respondent No. 3, supporting the action of the Municipal Council, produced a copy of a/davit & submits that the petitioner was rightly denied the tender form as he failed to furnish the a/davit strictly in the format prescribed under the NIT. It is contended that the a/davit submitted by the petitioner contained deviations, including the witness’s signature appearing below the veri7cation and the inclusion of an additional paragraph not forming part of the prescribed format, thereby making the document non-compliant. It is further submitted that the copy of the said a/davit clearly re<ects these discrepancies. Hence, the action of the Municipal Council is justi7ed, lawful, and not tainted by arbitrariness or mala 7des. 6 6. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition 7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the documents placed before this Court, it is evident that the a/davit submitted by the petitioner being an essential document under the NIT was not in the prescribed format. The copy of the a/davit produced by the respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation, which is taken on record clearly shows that the petitioner had inserted an additional paragraph No. 2 not forming part of the required format and had obtained the witness’s signature below the veri7cation clause, contrary to the stipulated structure. In tender matters, strict adherence to the prescribed conditions is mandatory to ensure fairness, transparency and a level playing 7eld among all bidders. The deviations re<ected in the petitioner’s a/davit cannot be treated as minor or capable of waiver when the conditions explicitly mandate submission in a speci7c format. Therefore, the action of the respondent No.3/Municipal Council in refusing to issue the tender cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The petitioner ought to have submitted 7 the tender form along with its supporting documents as required in the NIT in its letter and spirit. Hence, the Municipal Council/Respondent No. 3 rightly denied to give tender form. 8. In view thereof, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib