1 2025:CGHC:61794-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6611 of 2025 Rajesh Mishra S/o Ramcharan Mishra Aged About 43 Years Proprietor Of Rajesh Mishra Proprietor Firm, R/o Village And Post Gadiras, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Through The Director, Indravati Bhawan, Block D, Fourth Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Municipal Council, Sukma Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.12.19 16:39:07 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/12/2025 1. The instant Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeks following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus thereby quashing the entire tender process initiated by Respondent No.3/Municipal Council, Sukma, through its Chief Municipal Officer, Including the Notice Inviting Tender dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P/3), and Corrigendum dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P/4), being without jurisdiction for want of sanction from the competent authority, i.e. Respondents No. 1 and 2, in the ends of justice; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing Respondents No. 3 & 4 / Municipal Council, Sukma and its Chief Municipal Officer to initiate the entire tender process afresh for the construction works outlined in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P/3) and Corrigendum dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P/4) afresh, after giving equal opportunity to participate in the tender process to the Petitioner, in the ends of justice; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus thereby directing Respondents No. 3 & 4 / Municipal Council, Sukma and its Chief Municipal Officer to issue tender form to the Petitioner for the constructions works outlined in 3 the Notice Inviting Tender dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P/3) and Corrigendum dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P/4) and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law; 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including the Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 3 issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 14.11.2025 through a manual system for execution of certain construction works, wherein the last date for obtaining the tender forms was fixed as 05.12.2025. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 28.11.2025 was issued, whereby the said NIT was materially amended and tenders were invited separately for 40 construction works aggregating to an amount of Rs. 330.84 lakhs, with revised timelines for obtaining tender forms 05/12/2025 and submission of bids on 12.12.2025 till 3:00 PM. It is contended that despite the Petitioner being eligible and qualified, Respondents No. 3 and 4 arbitrarily and discriminatorily denied the supply of tender forms to the Petitioner, thereby excluding him from participating in the tender process, in violation of the principles of fairness, transparency and equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submits that the denial of tender forms was motivated and selective, aimed at favouring certain persons aligned with the ruling dispensation, while deliberately excluding the Petitioner and other similarly situated contractors. Repeated requests made by the Petitioner for issuance of tender forms were ignored, compelling the Petitioner and other aggrieved contractors to submit a representation 4 dated 09.12.2025 before the Collector, Sukma, complaining of the illegal and arbitrary conduct of Respondent No. 4. It is further urged that the entire tender process, involving an amount of Rs. 330.84 lakhs for a Municipal Council having a population of less than 30,000, could not have been initiated without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authorities, namely Respondents No. 1 and 2, rendering the impugned action ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the tender process initiated pursuant to the NIT dated 14.11.2025, as amended by corrigendum dated 28.11.2025, was conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedure, ensuring transparency and equal opportunity. The allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination and political influence are denied as vague and unsupported by any material. It is contended that tender form were issued to all eligible persons who had applied for. He would submit that judicial review in contractual matters is limited to the decision-making process, which is neither arbitrary nor mala fide in the present case. Any interference at this stage would adversely affect public interest and delay execution of public works. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 5. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to tenders and contractual obligations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is 5 limited. The Court is required to examine only the legality of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Interference is permissible only when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions. 6. In the present case, the Petitioner has failed to place any cogent material on record to substantiate the allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, or political bias. The pleadings do not disclose any deviation from the prescribed tender procedure or from the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender so as to warrant interference by this Court. 7. This Court also notes that the Petitioner claims to have approached the office of the Respondents on 24.11.2025 for obtaining the tender form, which was allegedly denied. Even if the said assertion is accepted at face value, though the last date of issuance of tender form was 05/12/2025 and if the said tender form not issued on 05/12/2025, the Petitioner did not approach the higher authority or this Court with promptitude thereafter. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for such inaction. In tender matters, where strict adherence to timelines is imperative, delay and laches assume significance, particularly when the tender process has substantially progressed. Interference at such a belated stage is likely to disrupt the process and prejudice public interest, thereby disentitling the Petitioner from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This Court further finds that no vested or enforceable right accrues in 6 favour of the Petitioner merely upon issuance of a Notice Inviting Tender. The allegations levelled by the Petitioner are vague, unsubstantiated, and founded on conjectures. The decision-making process adopted by the Respondents does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides. The unexplained delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner further disentitle him from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference in the tender process. The writ petition, being devoid of merit and barred by delay and laches, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Bhilwar