1 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 2025:CGHC:58509-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6286 of 2025 M/s Vijay Kumar Shailendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Office Address- Plot No. A-28, Vidhya Vihar, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Chhattisgarh 4920020, Through Their Its Director Shailendra Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Ramanuj Mishra, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Plot No. A-28, Vidhya Vihar, Nehru Nagar West, Ward No. 60, Katul Board, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Capital Complex, Tahsil- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Basin Water Resource Department, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Division Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.03 17:36:46 +0530 2 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 4 - Ram Shiromani Tiwari ‘A’ Class Contractor Vardhman Nagar, Qtr No. 103, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh- 491441 5 - M/s S. Kumar Construction Company Through Its Partner Mr. Mukesh Kumar Lakkar Aged About 48 Years R/o Maharani Laxmibai Chowk, Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shree Rani Sati Granite Company Through Its Partner Mr. Vijay Kumar Kediya, R/o Station Road, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh- 497442 ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate appeared through Video Conferencing assisted by Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General alongwith Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 03.12.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 This hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in calling entire records of the subject Tender & detailed report from respondent No.1 in respect of the subject NIT No.: 09/SAC/2025-26, Dated: 17.10.2025 (Annexure P- 1). 3 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 10.2 This hon'ble court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to open the petitioner's price bid and to award the work to the lowest bidder in the subject e-Tender vide NIT No.: 09/SAC/2025-26, Dated: 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 This hon'ble court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as technically qualified, having fulfilled the requirement of Physical Turnover for the correct 5-year period i.e., 2020- 2021 to 2024-2025, as per Clause 1.2 of the aforesaid NIT. 10.4 This hon'ble court may please be kind enough in restraining the respondents from awarding the tender in question to any third party, including respondent No.4, without considering the petitioner's price bid. 10.5 This hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in granting any other relief & the cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner participated in an e-Tender (Annexure P-1) floated by the respondents on 17.10.2025 bearing System Tender No. 177951 for the work titled “Remodeling and C.C. Lining of Main Canal 0 M to 26790 M with construction of 29 structures viz. 3 nos. of Syphon, 2 nos. of Non-controlling Weir, 18 nos. of Inlet, 6 nos. of Minor Head at Minor (Ratapayli, Kirgi-1, Kirgi-2, Bhothali, Sambhalpur, Bhawarmara) with 73 nos. of Colaba at different chainages and repair of wing wall and parapet wall of Shivnath Diversion Scheme under Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon.” The 4 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 petitioner submitted his bid and fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the Notice Inviting Tender. As per Annexure-1 of the NIT, bidders were required to submit physical turnover for the last five years, and in the tender form, it was further required to submit physical turnover pertaining to the firm’s business in any one of the last five financial years from 2019-20 to 2023-24. However, the correct period should have been mentioned as 2019-20 to 2024-25 for the last five financial years. The petitioner duly uploaded documents showing physical turnover for the last five financial years, i.e., from 2019-20 to 2024-25, in compliance with Clause 1.2 of Annexure-1 of the NIT. Despite fulfilling the prescribed qualification criteria, the petitioner was informed via email on 20.11.2025 at 7:59 PM (Annexure-P./3) that his bid had been rejected during the Part-1 (Envelope-B) techno-commercial evaluation for allegedly not meeting the physical qualification criteria, and hence, his price bid would not be opened. The rejection of the petitioner’s bid is arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the NIT, as the petitioner has complied with all the mandatory requirements. Therefore, the action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner technically disqualified is unsustainable in law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the NIT and has submitted all requisite documents, including the Physical 5 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 Turnover and Experience Certificates for the last five financial years, and therefore the petitioner’s price bid deserved to be opened and considered. It is contended that, as per Clause 1.2 of Annexure-1 of the NIT, the physical qualification is required to be evaluated for any one year during the last five years preceding NIT No. 09/SAC/2025-26 dated 17.10.2025, which clearly corresponds to the financial years 2020-21 to 2024-25, whereas the respondents have erroneously mentioned the period 2019-20 to 2023-24, contrary to the tender terms themselves. The petitioner has already submitted the Physical Turnover for the year 2024-2025, which forms part of the relevant five-year cycle preceding the issuance of the NIT, and therefore rejection of the petitioner’s bid on this ground is patently illegal. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have arbitrarily and malafidely altered the tender conditions by inserting an incorrect five-year cycle, thereby creating ambiguity and unfairness in the tender process. It is urged that any ambiguity in a public tender must be interpreted in favour of wider participation rather than exclusion, and thus the petitioner cannot be penalised for an error created by the respondents themselves. It is further alleged that the unilateral deviation from tender conditions, to the apparent advantage of respondent No.4, is discriminatory, arbitrary, violative of equality principles, and destructive of a fair and transparent competitive process. Consequently, the 6 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 impugned rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid is arbitrary, unreasonable, malafide, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s bid was evaluated strictly in accordance with the terms of the NIT and the prescribed eligibility criteria. It is contended that Annexure-1 of the NIT clearly required submission of Physical Turnover for the years 2019-20 to 2023- 24, and the petitioner failed to furnish turnover within this specified period, instead relying upon the year 2024-25, which does not form part of the notified cycle. It is argued that the tendering authority cannot relax or modify the tender conditions for any individual bidder, and all participants were uniformly evaluated on the same parameters. The allegation of arbitrariness or mala fides is specifically denied, and it is submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid is lawful, justified, and in strict conformity with the NIT, warranting no interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the other documents appended with writ petition. 6. Clause 1.0 of the NIT provides for criteria for evaluation of bid whereas clauses 1.1 & 1.2 speaks about physical turnover and financial turnover, respectively. The same are quote below for 7 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 proper adjudication of the present lis : “1.0 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF BID: 1.1 Physical Turnover Should have executed minimum satisfactory quantum of work worked out as under in any one year during the last five year from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 for similar nature and magnitude of main item of works involved in the contract as given in Annexure II. Relevant certificates pertaining to the above duly attested should be submitted by Tenderer as a proof. xxx xxx xxx 1.2 Financial turnover Should have a minimum financial tum over value of CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS successfully executed worked out as under in any one year during the last five years from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 (10% weight-age per year shall be given to bring the financial turnover to present price level)” 7. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite vivid that the bidder should have executed minimum satisfactory quantum of work worked out as under in any one year during the last five year from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 for similar nature and magnitude of main item of works involved in the contract as given in Annexure II and should have a minimum financial tum over value of Civil engineering works successfully executed 8 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 worked out as under in any one year during the last five years from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the case at hand the petitioner has failed to establish that he has submitted the bid by giving the working details and financial turnover of the period of 2019-20 to 2023-24, as has been provided in the NIT. When the NIT categorically specifies certain conditions, the bidder is required to fulfill the same in its true perspective and he cannot be allowed to interpret the same as per his whims and fancies. In such circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner’s bid on the ground of non-fulfilment of the physical qualification criteria cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Even the petitioner participated in the subject tender process without questioning the clause 1.1 & 1.2 of NIT and when he has been declared unsuccessful, is questioning the said clauses in the preset petition, which is not at all permissible in the eyes of law. 8. In case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the owner or the employer of a project having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. 9. In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain2,, the Apex Court has observed as under: 1 (2016) 16 SCC 818 2 (2022) 6 SCC 127 9 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 “22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional 10 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 10. The Apex Court, in the matter of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, held that in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted. Taking note of its several decisions, the Supreme Court observed as under (at paras No. 10 to 14):- “10. This Court, in a series of decisions, considered similar conditions e incorporated in the tender documents and also the scope and judicial review of administrative actions. The scope and the approach to be adopted in the process of such review have been settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. Since the principle of law is settled and well recognised by now, we may refer to some of the decisions only to recapitulate the relevant tests applicable and approach of this Court in such matters. 11. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India this Court emphasised the need to find a right balance between administrative discretion to decide the matters on the one hand, and the need to remedy any unfairness on the other, and observed: (SCC pp. 687-88, para 94) 11 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 "(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.… (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." (emphasis in original) 12. In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. this Court reiterated the principle governing the process of judicial review and held that the writ court would not be justified in interfering with commercial transactions in which the State is one of the parties except where there is substantial public interest involved and in cases where the transaction is mala fide. 12 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 13. In Union of India v. International Trading Co. this Court, in similar circumstances, held as under: (SCC pp. 445 & 447, paras 15-16 & 22-23) "15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness. 16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action 13 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary. * * * 22. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities and adopt trade policies. As noted above, the ultimate test is whether on the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decision comes out unscathed. 23. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd. v. RTA, Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District Council and Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala.)" 14 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 14. In Jespar I. Slong v. State of Meghalaya this Court, in para 17, held as under: (SCC p. 494) "17. ... fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable." 11. This Court is conscious of the well-settled principle that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited. Interference by the writ court is warranted only when the action of the tendering authority is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or in violation of statutory or constitutional provisions. The Courts are not expected to sit in appeal over the wisdom of the tendering authority in formulating terms and conditions of the tender, unless such terms are manifestly unreasonable or designed to favour a particular bidder. 12. It is the trite law that the Court should not interfere in tender matters unless the Government's decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, malicious, or suffers from mala fides. It should exercise restraint and avoid substituting its judgment for the administrative authority's, especially when it comes to the technical and commercial aspects of the tendering process. The court's role is not to act as an employer but to ensure the process adheres to fairness and is not discriminatory. The Government 15 WPC No. 6286 of 2025 has broad discretion in setting the terms of a tender. It is also the settled law that the Courts lack the specialized expertise to evaluate technical and commercial contract decisions and should not second-guess the employer's choices. Judicial review of tender matters is a limited power, and interference is only warranted for clear-cut cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, or bias. 13. Thus, in our considered view, the decision of the respondent authority appears to be just and proper, for which this Court ordinarily would not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Gowri