1 2025:CGHC:51571-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5453 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 (Tender Cell), O/o Einc, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur,atal Nagar, Water Resources Department Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Basin, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. 5 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Baikunthpur, District Koriya C.G. 6 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.17 10:31:11 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, A.G. and Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “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. 3 dated 25.09.2025 (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. 3 to accept the Bid of the petitioner as a valid Bid and to open the price bid of the petitioner, and only thereafter, issue LOI and work order to most eligible bidder/tenderer, in the interest of justice. 3 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. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that on 25.08.2025, the respondent No. 5 floated a tender bearing System Tender No. 174048 for the work of “CC Lining Work of 0 M to 10000 M of Badgaon Minor of LBC Canal of Gej Medium Project.” As per the said Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), the bidders were required to deposit an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.2,80,000/-, and the bid submission window was open from 01.09.2025 at 05:30 p.m. to 11.09.2025 at 05:30 p.m., with the date of opening of bids fixed for 12.09.2025 at 11:30 a.m. The petitioner firm, being an “A” Class Contractor registered with the Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh, and fulfilling all the eligibility criteria prescribed in the NIT, duly participated in the tender process and submitted all requisite documents and certificates before the due date. However, before the opening of the bids, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 25.09.2025, disqualified the petitioner on the grounds that (i) the petitioner furnished misleading and incorrect information in Annexure-III by concealing “work in hand” pertaining to Agreement No. 01/DL/2013-14 of W.R. Division, Balrampur, in violation of Clause 2.1.6(ii) of the tender conditions, and (ii) the petitioner did not fulfil the bid capacity criteria as per the NIT. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner through email, 4 calling for an explanation. The petitioner immediately submitted a detailed reply clarifying that Agreement No. 01/DL/2013-14 of W.R. Division, Balrampur, had already been completed on 31.12.2022, and a completion certificate was issued on 30.01.2023. Further, all payments for the said work had been released, and hence it no longer fell under the category of “work in hand.” The petitioner also pointed out that eleven other ongoing works had been duly disclosed in Annexure-III. Despite this clarification, respondent No. 3, without conducting any inquiry or verification and in an arbitrary and mala fide manner, proceeded to disqualify the petitioner’s bid and is now taking steps to open the bids excluding the petitioner. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, and actuated with mala fide intention, and therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is urged that, as per Annexure “III” of the NIT, only the details of works presently in hand were required to be furnished, and there was no stipulation anywhere in the tender documents mandating disclosure of completed works. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished details of eleven ongoing works which were under execution at the time of submission of the bid. The petitioner did not include the work under Agreement No. 01/DL/2013-14 of W.R. Division, Balrampur, as the said work had already been completed on 31.12.2022 and a completion certificate was duly issued by the Executive 5 Engineer on 30.01.2023. Therefore, the allegation of furnishing misleading or incorrect information in Annexure “III” is wholly unfounded and contrary to the records. 5. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3, without properly appreciating the documents submitted by the petitioner and in a hasty and arbitrary manner, disqualified the petitioner on erroneous assumptions that the aforesaid completed work was still “in hand” and that the petitioner did not meet the bid capacity criteria. The petitioner had also filed a detailed reply enclosing the completion certificate issued by respondent no. 6, confirming that all payments relating to the said work were already made and no dues were pending, but the same was ignored by respondent no. 3. The impugned action, therefore, suffers from complete non- application of mind and violation of principles of fairness and natural justice, rendering the disqualification of the petitioner arbitrary, unconstitutional, and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no payment was pending with respect to the work order which was issued, as it is evident from certificate dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Balrampur. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents / State submits that the certificate dated 26.09.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Balrampur, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that no bill or payment was pending with 6 the contractor, has already been withdrawn by the competent authority vide amended order dated 07.10.2025. It is, therefore, submitted that the very basis of the petitioner’s claim stands nullified and the reliance placed on the said certificate is misconceived. In view of the withdrawal of the aforesaid certificate, it is further contended that the relief sought in the present writ petition no longer survives for consideration and the same has virtually become infructuous. Hence, no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court in the tender proceedings initiated by the respondents, and the petition deserves to be dismissed accordingly. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsel. 8. In view of the fact that the certificate dated 26.09.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Balrampur, relied upon by the petitioner, has been withdrawn vide amended order dated 07.10.2025, the very basis of the petitioner’s claim does not survive. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet