1 2025:CGHC:56513-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6046 of 2025 M/s. Jaiswal Brajesh And Co. Represented Through The Authorized Signatory Shri Awdhesh Kumar Jaiswal, Fca, Membership No. 409428, Address- Plot No. 48, Bangali Para, Behind Sai Mandir, Dubey Colony, Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Having Office At Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Directorate Of Medical Education, Through Its Director, Having Office At North Block, Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Joint Director, National Health Mission, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 & 4 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.21 10:26:59 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/11/2025 1. Heard Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/ State and Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 & 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction and quash / set aside order dated 14.10.2025 passed in respect of Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6568454 for "Financial Audit Service - As per ATC (NHM RFP 2025-26)" on the sole ground of the same IP address, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction and direct the Respondent authorities to reconsider and evaluate the Petitioner's tender on its own merits, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioner.” 3. The facts of the case are that the the petitioner is a Partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants duly registered under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. On 14.08.2025, the respondent authorities issued a tender bearing Bid No. GEM/2025/8/6568454 for providing Financial Audit Services as per ATC (NHM RFP 2025-26) for CAG-empaneled/CA audit 3 firms. The petitioner submitted its bid along with all required documents on the GeM Portal, and its participation is reflected in the list of bidders (Annexure P/4). However, during Technical Evaluation on 14.10.2025, the petitioner’s tender was rejected solely on the ground that the same IP address had been used for submission. That, on the same date, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Joint Director, National Health Mission, explaining that the petitioner and another bidder had inadvertently used the services of the same tender-filing agency, due to which the bids were uploaded from the same public IP address. The rejection of the petitioner’s bid on such grounds is arbitrary, illegal, without authority, and violative of the petitioner’s rights, and thus the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s tender solely on the ground of a common IP address is arbitrary, unsupported by the tender conditions, and impermissible under law. It is pointed out that the GeM 4.0 General Terms and Conditions nowhere prohibit submission of bids from the same IP address, and therefore, the respondents could not have introduced a disqualifying condition not found in the bid document. It is further submitted that mere similarity of IP address cannot establish collusion which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 25008/2021, wherein it was held that such similarity may arise for technical or incidental reasons, including use of public networks or common service providers. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner had duly explained through representation dated 14.10.2025 4 that both bidders had engaged the same tender-filing agency due to technical difficulties, and that there is no relationship or connection between the firms. However, the respondents neither conducted any inquiry nor afforded any opportunity of hearing, resulting in violation of natural justice. Hence, the impugned rejection deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and relies upon the letter dated 07.08.2025 issued by the Secretary, Commerce and Industry, wherein it has been stated that the possibility of collusion may arise when bids are submitted from similar IP addresses. It is contended that, in view of this communication and to maintain the integrity of the tender process, the petitioner’s bid was rejected on the ground that the same IP address was found to have been used by two participating bidders. He further submits that the work order has also been issued and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition be dismissed. 6. On a pointed query put to the learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 as to whether the condition for rejection of a bid on the basis of a common IP address was incorporated in the NIT, it was fairly admitted that no such condition was mentioned in the tender bearing Bid No. GEM/2025/8/6568454. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached. 5 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner’s bid was rejected solely on the basis of a ground which did not form part of the NIT or the tender conditions. The admitted position is that the tender bearing Bid No. GEM/2025/8/6568454 did not contain any stipulation prohibiting submission of bids from a common IP address. The rejection of the petitioner’s bid on the strength of an external letter dated 07.08.2025, which was neither incorporated in the NIT nor made known to the bidders, is therefore arbitrary, dehors the tender conditions, and unsustainable in law. In view of the fact that the work order has already been issued to another bidder, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the tender process at this stage; however, the petitioner has undeniably suffered prejudice due to the wrongful rejection. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents No. 3 and 4 shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the petitioner for the arbitrary rejection of its bid. The said amount shall be paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid direction/ observation, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti