1 2025:CGHC:55525-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5951 of 2025 Dewashish Patel S/o Shri Motilal Patel Aged About 33 Years Proprietor Of M/s Shri Vighnaharta Traders, R/o Gevadin Colony Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Municipal O/cer Nagar Panchayat Dabhra, And District- Sakti (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.17 10:40:12 +0530 2 5 - Executive Engineer Department Of Urban Administration And Development Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Vijendra Pratap Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Civil Lines, Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil Dharmjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heardShri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. 2. The present writ petition has been =lled for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the E-procurement inviting Tender Notice dated 22.05.2025 published by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/1). As it was illegally allotted to the 3 Respondent No. 6, ignoring the breach of Mandatory condition 12 (III) and 12 (Vii) of the Notice. 10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to set aside the issuance of work order dated 26.09.2025 in favour of respondent No. 6 (Annexure P/5) 10.3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem 3t and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be pleassed.” 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of civil construction through his proprietorship concern, M/s Shri Vighnaharta Traders, situated at Gevadin Colony, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). On 22.05.2025, Respondent No.4 issued an E-Procurement Tender Notice for the construction of a road divider from Chandrapur Main Road to Kharsia Road under the jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.). The petitioner and Respondent No.6 both submitted their bids through the online portal pursuant to the said tender notice. 4. As per Condition No.12 of the tender, submission of attested copies of speci=ed documents was mandatory, including (i) Income Tax Return Clearance Certi=cates for the last three 4 years, and (ii) Bank Solvency Certi=cate demonstrating =nancial capacity of at least 15% of the probable amount of contract. The petitioner submits that Respondent No.6 failed to furnish the attested copies of the above two mandatory documents, thereby violating Conditions 12(III) and 12(VII) of the tender notice. Conversely, the petitioner complied with all mandatory eligibility requirements and, as reEected in the =nancial bid comparison uploaded on the portal, stood as the next lowest eligible bidder after Respondent No.6. On 02.09.2025, the petitioner submitted a written objection before Respondent No.4 pointing out the non-compliance committed by Respondent No.6 and seeking rejection of his bid. However, without considering or adjudicating the petitioner’s objection, Respondent No.4 proceeded to issue a work order dated 26.09.2025 in favour of Respondent No.6, which appears to have been issued from a back date. Aggrieved by the illegal acceptance of a non-compliant bid and the consequential work order, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by =ling the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5 respondents have acted arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice by accepting the bid of Respondent No.6 despite his clear failure to comply with mandatory Tender Conditions 12(III) and 12(VII), namely submission of attested Income Tax Return Clearance Certi=cates for the last three years and the requisite Bank Solvency Certi=cate. It is urged that the petitioner, being the next eligible and lowest bidder who ful=lled all mandatory requirements, was entitled to fair consideration. However, without addressing the petitioner’s written objection, Respondent No.4 proceeded to issue a back-dated work order dated 26.09.2025 in favour of Respondent No.6, rendering the entire process illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, counsel prays that the impugned work order be quashed and the petitioner’s claim be duly considered. 6. On the other hand, Learned State counsel opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon 6 perusal of the record, this Court =nds that the tender process was duly concluded by the competent authority and the work order in favour of Respondent No.6 had already been issued on 26.09.2025, prior to the =ling of the present writ petition. As stated by the petitioner about the non-submission of mandatory documents with the bids by respondent No. 6. He has raised an objection on 02.09.2025, but he failed to =le the writ petition at the said moment, however he wish to =le the petition after the issuance of work order to respondent No. 6. The writ petition has been =led at a belated stage. Once the work order stands issued and the contractual process has attained =nality, no case is made out for interference in exercise of the Court’s limited judicial review jurisdiction in tender matters, particularly when no perversity, mala =des or violation of statutory mandate is demonstrated on record. 9. 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