1 2025:CGHC:52900-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5642 of 2025 M/s Prime Services, A Partnership Firm, Having Office At 224a, (G.F.) Green M I G D D A Flats, Rajouri Garden, District - New Delhi 110027 Through Its Partner/ Authorised Representative - Rajeev Sahgal, S/o Late K.L. Sahgal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o F-30, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, 110015, District - New Delhi Delhi ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Having Office At Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Directorate Of Medical Education Through Its Director, Having Office At North Block, Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Sant Baba Guru Ghasidas Ji Memorial Government Hospital Raigarh Through Its Joint Director Cum Medical Superintendent, Having Office At Sant Baba Guru Ghasidas Ji Memorial Government, Hospital District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4. Joint Director Cum Medical Superintendent Sant Baba Guru Ghasidas Ji Memorial Government Hospital Raigarh, Having Office At Sant Baba Guru Ghasidas Ji Memorial Government, Hospital Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.31 10:44:34 +0530 2 5. M/s Ch Philip Caterers Through Its Proprietor, Having Office At Sector-1, Shivanand Nagar, Behind Tagore School, Khamtarai Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, A.G. with Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent(s) No. 5 : Mr. J.N. Nande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr, S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. G.A. appearing for the respondents/State and Mr. J. N. Nande, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs: “I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record's pertaining to instant tender bearing Bid Number-GEM/2025/B/6527730 dated 02/08/2025 issued by Respondent No. 4; II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) to quash the arbitrary, illegal and unjust rejection of Petitioner's bid on 09/09/2025 intimated vide email in Bid Number- GEM/2025/B/6527730 dated 3 02/08/2025 issued by Respondent No. 4; III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) to quash the arbitrary and illegal order dated 23/09/2025 issued by Respondent No. 4 vide email dated 23/09/2025: IV. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Wril(s). Order(s), Direction(s), thereby directing the Respondent authorities to re- evaluate the entire tender afresh in a transparent and fair manner in accordance with law in the instant tender bearing Bid Number- GEM/2025/8/6527730 dated 02/08/2025 issued by Respondent No. 4: V. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) declaring that the Petitioner is the qualified bidder in the instant tender bearing Bid Number- GEM/2025/8/6527730 dated 02/08/2025 issued by Respondent No. 4 and as a corollary direct that the tender and contract be awarded in favour of the Petitioner; VI. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) to set-aside and quash the award of tender/contract, etc. issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 vide contract dated 15/09/2025; VII. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) in the alternative to quash and set-aside the entire tender process in instant Bid Number- 4 GEM/2025/B/6527730 dated 02/08/2025 issued by Respondent No. 4 and direct the respondent authorities to initiate tender afresh. VIII. That, this Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief in favour of the Petitioner, which it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice, including the cost of the Petition.” 3. The facts of the case in brief is that Respondent No. 4 issued a tender on 02.08.2025 through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) Portal bearing Bid No. GEM/2025/8/8527730 for providing Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services to various categories of admitted patients at Sant Baba Guru Ghasidas Ji Memorial Government Hospital, Raigarh, G.G. The last date for submission of bids was 01.09.2025. The Petitioner participated in the said tender process after fulfilling all essential and requisite eligibility criteria. However, despite compliance with all tender conditions, the tender inviting authority arbitrarily and illegally deducted marks from the Petitioner’s technical/pre-qualification bid, awarding only 90 out of 100 marks and disqualified the petitioner by communication dated 09.09.2025 and informed that the petitioner may raise a one-time representation to the Buyer to challenge rejection if they feel that the rejection of their bid was not as per bid eligibility requirements. The Petitioner thereafter had submitted a representation- cum-objection against rejection of its bid on 10.09.2025 (uploaded on 11.09.2025) and also issued a legal notice on 13.09.2025. Despite this, the tender inviting authority failed to address or resolve the Petitioner’s 5 representation as required under the GeM regulations and awarded the tender to respondent No. 5 on 15.09.2025 without deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 11.09.2025. Furthermore, by letter dated 23.09.2025, the authority introduced new and extraneous criteria not forming part of the original tender terms and conditions. Additionally, the award of the contract in favour of Respondent No. 5 is claimed to be contrary to the tender stipulation restricting the contract period to three years, as the contract has been awarded for an extended term of 4 years, 11 months, and 29 days, rendering the award illegal and unsustainable. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby deserving to be set aside. It was contended that the Petitioner had duly satisfied and fulfilled all the essential terms and conditions of the tender; however, without any valid justification or reasoned order, the tender inviting authority, i.e., Respondent No. 4, arbitrarily deducted the Petitioner’s marks in the Technical/Pre-Qualification bid, awarding 90 out of 100 marks, whereas based on the documents submitted and clarification dated 04.09.2025, the Petitioner was entitled to full marks. It was further submitted that despite the Petitioner’s representation-cum-objection dated 10.09.2025 (uploaded on 11.09.2025) and the legal notice dated 13.09.2025, no opportunity of hearing was granted, nor was the representation decided as required under the GeM guidelines, which mandate consideration of such objections before proceeding further with the tender process. The 6 learned counsel emphasized that the Petitioner’s bid was rejected without assigning any reason, and the grounds for rejection were furnished only after eight days of awarding the tender and executing the contract in favour of Respondent No. 5, which cannot be considered compliance with the principles of natural justice. It was further urged that the Respondent No. 4, in order to favour Respondent No. 5, illegally created two new and extraneous tender criteria vide its communication dated 23.09.2025, which were never part of the original tender terms and conditions, thereby narrowing down the eligibility and ousting the Petitioner from fair consideration. Such conduct, it was argued, reflects malafide intention and bias on the part of the tender inviting authority. Learned Counsel further contended that Respondent No. 5 lacked the requisite essential qualifications and eligibility conditions; yet, with predetermined mind, Respondent No. 4 awarded the tender in its favour, despite clear discrepancies in Respondent No. 5’s bid. 5. It was also contended that the contract awarded to Respondent No. 5 is vitiated by material illegality, as the tender terms specifically restrict the duration of the contract to a maximum of three years, whereas the impugned contract has been granted for a period of four years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days, contrary to the express tender stipulations. The learned counsel would submit that judicial review of administrative actions is permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, and that any decision-making process which is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the 7 Constitution is liable to be interfered with. Applying the said principles, it was argued that the entire conduct of Respondent No. 4 in arbitrarily deducting marks, rejecting the Petitioner’s bid without justification, and awarding the tender to an ineligible bidder demonstrates arbitrariness, malafides, and procedural impropriety, thereby rendering the impugned tender process illegal and unsustainable in law. He further relies upon the matter of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of C.G., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid was justified and in accordance with the tender terms and conditions. It was contended that the Petitioner failed to submit proper and valid documents regarding the experience of dietician from government or semi-government hospitals, which was one of the essential eligibility requirements under the tender. It was further submitted that upon detailed scrutiny of the documents furnished by the Petitioner, discrepancies were found between the list of employees submitted and the details available in the records of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), thereby demonstrating non-compliance with mandatory conditions. Learned counsel asserted that the entire tender process was conducted strictly in accordance with law, adhering to all standard procedures and principles of fairness and transparency. It was argued that no arbitrariness or bias can be attributed to the actions of the tender inviting authority, and that the evaluation was carried out 8 objectively based on the documents submitted by all bidders. It was further submitted that the earlier contract for Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services expired on 14.09.2025, and since there was no ongoing arrangement for providing such essential services thereafter, the new tender was processed and finalized on a priority basis in favour of Respondent No. 5 to ensure uninterrupted healthcare and dietary services to admitted patients. Learned counsel therefore contended that the impugned tender process and the award of contract in favour of Respondent No. 5 were lawful, justified, and undertaken in public interest after following all due procedures. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 submits that he will be filing his vakalatnama today itself. He further submits that the contract in question has been duly allotted to Respondent No. 5 after proper verification and evaluation by the competent authority in accordance with the tender terms and conditions. It is contended that Respondent No. 5 fulfills all the requisite eligibility criteria and requirements prescribed under the tender, and that the award of the contract in his favour is legal, valid, and in conformity with the due process of law. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with the writ petition. 9. Admittedly, the Petitioner’s bid was rejected vide communication dated 09.09.2025, and the Petitioner was informed that he may submit a one-time representation in case it wished to challenge such rejection. 9 The record further reveals that the Petitioner submitted its representation-cum-objection dated 10.09.2025 (uploaded on 11.09.2025) within the stipulated 48-hour period, as permitted under the GeM guidelines. However, without deciding or considering the said representation, the Respondent No. 4 proceeded to finalize the tender and awarded the contract to Respondent No. 5 on 15.09.2025. The subsequent communication dated 23.09.2025 introducing new and extraneous tender criteria, on the basis of which the Petitioner’s bid was purportedly rejected, makes it evident that the reasons for rejection were supplied only after the completion of the tender process and execution of the contract in favour of the respondent No.5. Such conduct not only defeats the very purpose of the representation mechanism under the GeM regulations but also constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. From the entire material available on record, it is quite vivid that the tendering authority is acting with mala fide intention and rejected the bid of the petitioner with a predetermined and biased approach. 10. Furthermore, the record discloses that the tender conditions specifically restricted the contract period to a maximum of three years, except under exceptional circumstances, whereas the impugned contract has been awarded to Respondent No. 5 for a duration of four years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. No justification has been furnished by the respondents for extending the contract period beyond the prescribed limit. The act of awarding a contract for a period longer than what was expressly permitted under the tender terms is 10 ex facie contrary to the tender conditions and vitiates the legality of the award itself. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the tender process suffers from arbitrariness, procedural impropriety, and violation of the tender stipulations. The rejection of the Petitioner’s bid without prior consideration of its representation, followed by the post facto creation of new tender criteria, renders the entire process unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed, and the impugned tender award in favour of Respondent No. 5 is set aside. The Respondent No. 4 is directed to issue fresh NIT in accordance with law and the same be awarded to an eligible bidder within a period of one month from today. 12. It is further directed that since Respondent No. 5 has already been issued the work order and was also the previous service provider, he may be permitted to continue providing the Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services purely as a temporary arrangement for a period of one month. It is made clear that this interim continuation shall not create any equity or right in favour of Respondent No. 5. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti