1 2025:CGHC:56531-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6072 of 2025 M/s Jai Balaji Tour And Travels Through Its Proprietor Animesh Banerjee R/o H.No. 33, O, Kapsi Chhotekapsi Kanker, District- Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Compnay Limited (Cspdcl) Through Its Managing Director Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Engineer Cspdcl (O And M) Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintending Engineer (O And M) Cspdcl, Kanker Circle Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer (O And M) Cspdcl Pakhanjore Division District- Kanker (C.G.) 5 - M/s Jagdish Electricals Services Through Its Proprietor Rabi Bala R/o H.No. 67, Khilora Housing Board Colony, Old Dhamtari Road Raipur (C.G.) 6 - M/s A.P. Infratech Through Proprietor Akhilesh Verma Nehru Nagar, R/o Vill- Narayanpur Teh.- Bhanupratappur District- Kanker (North Bastar ) (C.G.) 7 - M/s Balaji Elecricals And Engineering Through Proprietor Bharat Vishal Thakur R/o Shitla Para, Kanker District- Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.21 10:39:51 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedagni Jangde and Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vedagni Jangde and Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for respective respondents / CSPDCL. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to place all the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. ii. That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents no. 1 to 4 and to stay the work order in favour of the respondent no. 5. iii. That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no 4 to cancel the reason for rejection of petitioners' price bid and open it. iv. That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 to grant the work order to petitioner if the petitioner's price bid is lowest and identified as L-1 or re-issue a fresh tender. v. Any other relief, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and 3 proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Jai Balaji Tours and Travels, one of the four participants who submitted bids pursuant to the Tender Invitation Notice dated 04.03.2025 issued by CSPDCL, Pakhanjore Division, for hiring one SUV vehicle. The tender process comprised opening of EMD, technical and price bids on 27.03.2025. During this process, the petitioner’s price bid was not opened on the ground of alleged non-submission of an authority letter, despite the fact that the petitioner’s authorised representative was permitted to submit the tender and the tender register reflected such submission. Respondent No. 5, though initially found to be the lowest bidder (L-1), was also disqualified on account of mismatch of signatures. Owing to multiple procedural irregularities and complaints regarding the earlier tender, the Executive Engineer cancelled the tender dated 04.03.2025 and issued a fresh tender on 29.05.2025. Subsequently, Respondent No. 5 challenged the fresh tender in WPC No. 3053/2025, which came to be disposed of after respondents No. 1 to 4 accepted the terms of Respondent No. 5 and proceeded to issue a work order in his favour, without reopening or considering the petitioner’s price bid, which was admittedly lower. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his bid and the arbitrary exclusion from the tender process, the petitioner submitted detailed representations dated 11.09.2025 and 25.09.2025 before Respondent 4 No. 4, but no action was taken, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disqualification of the petitioner on the alleged ground that only a photocopy of the authority letter was submitted is wholly arbitrary, contrary to the tender conditions, and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly when no clause mandates submission of an original authority letter. It is urged that the petitioner had duly complied with all terms and conditions of the NIT as well as the requirements stipulated under order No. 01- 02/Veh/Revision/1765 dated 09.05.2022, yet his tender was rejected without justification. It is further contended that although the petitioner’s authorised representative was permitted to deposit the tender documents in the tender box, an act that could not have occurred without verification of the authority letter, which also stands recorded in the company’s register, the petitioner’s price bid was still not opened, resulting in disqualification under clause 7(D) 12(IV) and (VI) of the office notings (का቟ኋलीन टि प), despite the availability of the authority letter dated 27.03.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s price bid was, in fact, the lowest among all four participants and approximately Rs.5,500/- lower than that of respondent No. 5, however, it was rejected without being opened, thereby defeating the petitioner’s legitimate expectation of being considered as L-1. It is alleged that respondents No. 1 to 4 acted arbitrarily in awarding the work to respondent No. 5 pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in WPC No. 3053/2025, despite a higher financial implication, which 5 results in unnecessary loss to public exchequer and is contrary to the duty of the authorities to safeguard government funds. It is also submitted that although the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in WPC No. 5742/2025, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, and hence the present petition is maintainable. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / CSPDCL submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the work order has already been issued in favour of respondent No. 5 pursuant to the proceedings in WPC No. 3034/2025, which had been preferred by respondent No. 5. It is submitted that in the said writ petition, respondent No. 5 had specifically contended that on both occasions in the tender process he was found to be the L-1 bidder, yet the authorities did not finalize the tender in his favour due to objections and procedural disputes raised by other bidders. Considering the grievances raised in WPC No. 3034/2025 and upon examining the tender record, respondents No. 1 to 4 accepted the submissions of respondent No. 5 and consequently issued the work order in his favour. It is therefore urged that the tender process now stands concluded, contractual rights have accrued to respondent No. 5, and no interference is warranted at this stage, particularly when any intervention would unsettle an already awarded and acted-upon work order. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsel. 7. Upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that the present writ petition suffers from gross delay. The tender process stood concluded 6 and the work order had already been issued in favour of respondent No. 5 pursuant to the earlier proceedings in WPC No. 3034/2025. The petitioner, despite being aware of the issuance of the work order and despite having participated in the previous round of litigation, has approached this Court only at a belated stage, after contractual rights had crystallised in favour of respondent No. 5 and the tender process had attained finality. It is well-settled that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to unsettle a concluded contractual process or to interfere once the work order has been acted upon. The petitioner, having slept over his alleged rights and having approached the Court after an unreasonable delay, cannot now seek to reopen the tender process. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet