1 WPC No.4443 of 2025 2025:CGHC:42668-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4443 of 2025 M/s Kailash Trading Company Through Propritor Naman Kothari S/o Suresh Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o A/10 Khandelwal Colony Durg Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary The Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Durg Through The Commissioner Nagar Nigam Complex Near Tempo Stand Surana College Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation Durg Nagar Nigam Complex Near Tempo Stand Surana College Road Durg District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. AG. For Respondent No. 2 & 3: Mr. Dhiraj Kuman Wankhede, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.25 17:16:12 +0530 2 WPC No.4443 of 2025 22/08/2025 1. The instant Writ Petition preferred Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:- “10.1 That, by way of this petition, this petitioner is praying for that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the respondents no. 2 and 3 may kindly be directed to consider the reply dated 14.07.2025 ANNEXURE P/5 and the petitioner may kindly be directed to provide 10 days further time to supply the 100 numbers of tricycle in pursuance of the work order dated 13.12.2024 ANNEXURE P/2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent No. 2 not to proceed further for fresh BID without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioer and without proper cancelling the BID dated 17/10/2024. 10.3 That, any other relief will be raised at the time of arguments.” 2. Facts as projected in the Writ Petition are that the respondent No. 2 issued Bid No. GEM/2024/B/5516469 dated 17.10.2024 inviting tenders for supply of 200 Tricycles/Rickshaws. The petitioner participated in the said tender and was declared as the successful bidder, pursuant to which a work order was issued in his favour. In pursuance of the aforesaid work order, the petitioner commenced supply and delivered a considerable number of tricycles. He was also allotted various other work orders during the same period, all of which were duly completed. However, on account of non-supply of the balance quantity from the 3 WPC No.4443 of 2025 manufacturer within the stipulated time, the petitioner could not complete supply of all 200 tricycles. The petitioner still has ready stock available for delivery, but the respondents are not accepting the same, and the tricycles already supplied remain kept in the yard of the Municipal Corporation, Durg. Under the work order dated 13.12.2024, the petitioner supplied 100 tricycles, out of which 68 have not been acknowledged by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, even though they were duly deposited in the Municipal Corporation yard. On account of delay in full supply, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 19.06.2025 granting 15 days’ time to complete delivery. Subsequently, another notice dated 11.07.2025 was issued granting only three days’ time for completion of the work order. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 14.07.2025 pointing out that 12th and 13th July were holidays, and requested 10 days’ additional time to complete delivery. However, without considering the reply, the respondent No. 2 issued a further notice dated 21.07.2025 under which a fresh bid was floated on 01.08.2025 for the remaining requirement of 168 Tricycles/Rickshaws. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in issuing the fresh tender is wholly arbitrary and mala fide, inasmuch as the petitioner had sought only 10 days’ time to complete the supply, whereas under the fresh bid more than 45 days’ time for delivery has been allowed, thereby reflecting discriminatory conduct and 4 WPC No.4443 of 2025 prejudice against the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has already supplied a large number of tricycles under the work order and even completed other contracts of the respondent during the same period. The remaining supply could not be completed within time due to delay of the manufacturer, which was beyond the petitioner’s control. He presently has ready stock available, but the respondents are not accepting delivery. The tricycles already supplied are lying in the yard of the Municipal Corporation, Durg. The petitioner had only sought ten days’ further time, which was unreasonably denied. Instead, respondent No. 2 issued a fresh NIT dated 21.07.2025, later extended till 11.08.2025, allowing over 40–50 days for supply under the new bid, which clearly shows mala fide intent. The first NIT dated 17.10.2024 has not been cancelled in accordance with law, nor has any notice of cancellation been communicated. No provision exists in the earlier tender for such cancellation or for resolving disputes with a successful bidder. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would submit that the tender awarded to the petitioner has already terminated on 16.07.2025 and due communication of the said termination was made to the petitioner. It is contended that despite repeated opportunities, including notices dated 19.06.2025 and 11.07.2025, the petitioner failed to complete the supply within the stipulated time. The petitioner’s request for further extension of ten days was not acceptable in view of his continuous failure and non-performance. 5 WPC No.4443 of 2025 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings. 6. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner was awarded the tender for supply of 200 tricycles/rickshaws and, though partial supply was made, the petitioner failed to complete the balance supply within the stipulated time. Despite issuance of notices dated 19.06.2025 and 11.07.2025, granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not adhere to the time schedule prescribed under the work order. 7. The plea of the petitioner that delay occurred on account of the manufacturer and that he was willing to supply within an extended period of ten days cannot be accepted. Contractual obligations undertaken under a government tender are strict in nature and the contractor is bound to ensure performance within the agreed timeline. Failure to do so, despite repeated opportunities, disentitles the petitioner to claim equity in writ jurisdiction. 8. The allegation of mala fides on the ground that the fresh tender allowed a longer period of supply is also not substantiated. Mere comparison of the timelines between the terminated tender and the new tender is insufficient to establish mala fide intent. The respondents, being procuring authorities, are well within their rights to determine fresh terms in a subsequent tender keeping in view administrative and logistical requirements. 6 WPC No.4443 of 2025 9. The contention of the petitioner that the cancellation was not properly communicated also does not hold weight. The pleadings reveal that the termination order dated 16.07.2025 was duly issued and the petitioner was aware of the same. 10. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner failed to fulfill his contractual obligations within the stipulated time despite repeated opportunities. The action of the respondents in terminating the work order and issuing a fresh tender cannot be termed arbitrary or mala fide. 11. The dispute raised by the petitioner, insofar as it pertains to acknowledgment of the supplied tricycles or settlement of contractual dues, falls in the realm of contractual remedies and is not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed, leaving the petitioner to challenge the termination, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul