1 2025:CGHC:3825-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 460 of 2025 M/s Baijnath Agrawal, A Grade Unicode Contractor Registered Partnership Firm, Through Partner Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, S/o Late Hariom Agrawal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o School Road, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer- In- Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Hasdeo Basin, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer Water Resources Circle, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.23 18:38:32 +0530 2 appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the Petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant writ petition and the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 5, dated 06.01.2025 (Annx.P/1) may kindly be quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5 to issue LOI and work order for execution of work to petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition.” 3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, are that on 02.09.2024 the respondent No.5 has floated tender bearing System Tender No. 158167/NIT No. 05/SAC/2024- 25 for Construction of Dandani Nalla Anicut Cum Causeway. As per the NIT, the bidders were required to deposit EMD to the tune of Rs. 1,58,000/- and the bid starting date was from 09.09.2024 at 05:31 p.m and the last date for submission of bid was till 23.09.2024 at 05:30 p.m and the due date of opening of bid was 24.09.2024 at 11:30 a.m. Petitioner firm was desirous to execute the contract as 3 floated by the Respondent No. 5 therefore, the petitioner has also participated in the tender notice proceedings, tender bearing System Tender No. 158167/NIT No. 05/SAC/2024-25 for Construction of Dandani Nalla Anicut Cum Causeway. Thereafter on 02.12.2024 the price bid has been opened and found that the petitioner was the lowest bidder comparison to other contractor as the petitioner bid was much on lower side and thereafter petitioner being declared as L1. Thereafter petitioner was waiting for issuance of work order meanwhile on 31.12.2024, Respondent No.5 issued notice to petitioner and sought explanation from the petitioner by mentioning that the Tender No.109/D.L./2021-22 is work in hand, but petitioner has not been disclosed it in Annexure III and after receiving the notice from Respondent No. 5, petitioner immediately filed the reply and mentioned that the Tender No. 109/D.L./2021-22 has already been completed on 29.11.2022 and for that work completion certificate was also issued in favour of petitioner on 13.12.2022, so for that work is not comes under the category of work in hand and that is the reason that petitioner not mentioned the above said work in Annexure III as work in hand category even though petitioner was mentioned eight other works which are work in hand till date. Thereafter Respondent No. 5 without holding any enquiry and acted in malicious and arbitrary manner passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 and thereby tender work allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled being declared ineligible and further directed to forfeit the earnest 4 money deposit by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition with the aforesaid prayers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has participated in the tender in question and on 02.12.2024, the price bid has been opened and found that the petitioner was the lowest bidder comparison to other contractors as the petitioner’s bid was much on lower side and thereafter petitioner was declared as L1. Thereafter petitioner was waiting for issuance of work order meanwhile on 31.12.2024, respondent No.5 issued notice to petitioner and sought explanation from the petitioner by mentioning that the Tender No.109/D.L./2021-22 is work in hand, but petitioner has not been disclosed it in Annexure III and after receiving the notice from Respondent No. 5, petitioner immediately filed the reply and mentioned that the Tender No. 109/D.L./2021-22 has already been completed on 29.11.2022 and for that work completion certificate was also issued in favour of petitioner on 13.12.2022 and so for that work is concern, the same not comes under the category of work in hand as it has already been completed on 13.12.2022 and that is the reason that petitioner not mentioned the above said work in Annexure III as work in hand category even though petitioner has mentioned eight other works which are work in hand till date. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that Tender No.109/D.L./2021-22 is work in hand as the Bills of the said tender has not been cleared 5 by the concerned department and the said fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner, therefore, LOI and work order has not been issued to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner has participated in the tender in question and on 02.12.2024, the price bid has been opened and found that the petitioner was the lowest bidder comparison to other contractors as the petitioner’s bid was much on lower side and thereafter petitioner was declared as L1. In the meanwhile on 31.12.2024, respondent No.5 issued notice to petitioner and sought explanation from the petitioner by mentioning that the Tender No.109/D.L./2021-22 is work in hand, but petitioner has not been disclosed it in Annexure III and after receiving the notice from Respondent No. 5, petitioner immediately filed the reply and mentioned that the Tender No. 109/D.L./2021-22 has already been completed on 29.11.2022 and for that work completion certificate was also issued in favour of petitioner on 13.12.2022 and a copy of completion certificate has also been annexed as part of Anenxure-P/8, thus it is clear that so for as the Tender No. 109/D.L./2021-22 is concern, the same does not comes under the category of work in hand as it has already been completed on 13.12.2022 and that is the reason that petitioner had not mentioned the said work in Annexure III and the 6 petitioner has already mentioned eight other works which are work in hand till date. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.5, declaring the petitioner ineligible and forfeiting the EMD is hereby set aside. The respondent No.5 is directed to issue LOI and work order for execution of the work in question in favour of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra