1 2025:CGHC:56013-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5940 of 2025 M/s Agrawal Sons Through Proprietor Smt. Pushpa Agrawal W/o Shri Mukesh Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o D-108 Swarn Bhoomi Aama- Seoni Vidhan Sabha Road, Thana Vidhan Sabha Tehsil District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Communication, Government Of India Department Of Telecommunication Sanchar Bhawan 20 Ashoka Road New Delhi 110001, Delhi 2. Chairman Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) Registered Office Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane Janpath, New Delhi 110001 3. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) Bsnl Administrative Building Vidhan Sabha Road, Near Jack And Jill School Khamardih Chhattisgarh 492007 4. Deputy Manager Mstc Limited Nro Delhi 30/31 Jeevan Vikas Bhawan First Floor Ashif Ali Road Infront Of Hamdard New Delhi 110002 E-Mail - Nroopn15@Mstcindia.In 9830430434 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate and Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.20 10:14:42 +0530 2 For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/11/2025 1. Heard Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate and Mr. Shailendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sandeep Dubey, , learned counsel for respondent No. 2 & 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash/set a-side E-mail communication dated 04/11/2025 (ANNEXURE P/3) which has reference of minutes and approval of tender committee but was not supplied. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the Tender Committee dated 14.10.2025 and further be pleased to allow the petitioner to participate in Price bid which is going to be held on 11/11/2025 (ANNEXURE P/6). 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also be granted to the petitioners.” 3 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, proprietor of Agrawal Sons, intended to participate in an E-auction initiated by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for sale of a land parcel situated at BSNL Administrative Building, Vidhan Sabha Road, Khamardih, Raipur, as per Request for Proposal (RFP) No. BSNL-Co/LM/AUCTION/2025-26/23 dated 31.07.2025. As required under the RFP, the petitioner deposited the enhanced Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of 2.82 crores 80% ₹ through Bank Guarantee and 20% through challan and submitted all documents prescribed under Annexures 1 to 7 for the technical bid stage. However, on 04.11.2025, the petitioner was informed by email that their technical bid was not found in accordance with the RFP, without specifying any deficiency, and referring to minutes dated 14.10.2025 which were never communicated. Despite seeking a copy of such minutes on 07.11.2025, no response was provided. The petitioner asserts that all required documents were duly submitted and alleges that the rejection of their technical bid is arbitrary and mala fide, depriving the petitioner’s right to participate in the scheduled E-auction on 11.11.2025, thereby affecting transparency and fair competition in the tender process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land proposed to be auctioned belongs to BSNL, a public authority, and therefore its disposal must strictly adhere to principles of transparency, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. It is contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid is wholly arbitrary, lacking transparency, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no reasons or deficiencies were 4 communicated. The petitioner was informed of the rejection only after a delay of more than 20 days, and that too just before the scheduled auction on 11.11.2025, clearly indicating mala fide intention on the part of the respondents to deprive them of an opportunity to participate in the auction process. Such an approach, it is argued, undermines fair competition and violates the petitioner’s constitutional rights. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for BSNL submits that the petitioner’s disqualification was strictly in accordance with the terms of the Request for Proposal. Referring to Clause 3.3 of the bidding process, it is submitted that every bidder was mandatorily required to upload a copy of the BG/FDR with the technical bid and also physically submit the original BG/FDR at the designated BSNL office within one week from the last date of submission of bids. The petitioner admittedly failed to comply with this essential condition. Learned counsel by submitting a copy of the petitioner’s own letter dated 10.10.2025 addressed to BSNL, wherein the petitioner tendered an apology for not submitting the hard copy of the Bank Guarantee within the stipulated time due to medical reasons. The same is taken on record. The contents of letter clearly shows that the petitioner was fully aware of the reason for her disqualification and has approached this Court without clean hands. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached. 5 7. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote Clause 3.3 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) Document which reads as under:- 3.3. Earnest Money Deposit (EMD): a. The Bidders should submit EMD specified in Clause 3.2, through digital transfer on the MSTC Portal, Alternatively, the bidder shall have the option to submit Rs.28,20,000.00 (i.e. 20% of the EMD amount) through digital transfer on the MSTC portal and the remaining EMD amount in the form of Bank Guarantee (BG) or Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of a Commercial Bank. The BG/FDR shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of publishing of this RFP. The FDR shall be pledged in favour of A.O (A&B) O/O CGMT CG Circle BSNL Raipur. The format of Bank Guarantee is enclosed at Annexure-3. The bidder shall upload a copy of BG/FDR with the technical bid and the original BG/FDR needs to be physically submitted at the designated BSNL Office at A.O(A&B) O/ O CGMT CG Circle BSNL Raipur within one week of the last date of submission of bid. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. 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. 1 (2016) 16 SCC 818 6 10. In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain2,, the Apex Court has observed as under: “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 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.” 11. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the RFP conditions, particularly Clause 3.3, we find no merit in the writ petition. The requirement of uploading a copy of the BG/FDR with the 2 (2022) 6 SCC 127 7 technical bid and physically submitting the original BG/FDR at the designated BSNL office within one week of the last date of submission of bids is a mandatory and non-negotiable condition of the bidding process. It is an admitted position that the petitioner failed to submit the original Bank Guarantee within the stipulated period and, in fact, the petitioner has tendered a written apology on 10.10.2025 acknowledging such lapse. 12. In view of this admitted non-compliance, the petitioner cannot now claim arbitrariness or violation of natural justice, nor can demand participation in the auction in contravention of the tender terms. The plea of mala fides is wholly unsubstantiated. The rejection of the technical bid is thus strictly in conformity with the RFP and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti