1 2025:CGHC:59051-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6362 of 2025 Trilochan Singh Saluja S/o Late Niranjan Singh Saluja Aged About 70 Years R/o Bahadur Ganj Ward, Ward No. 20, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Sector 19 Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492018. 2. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) Through The Managing Director, Raipur, 6th Floor Tower C Commercial Complex, Cbd, Sector 21, Block C, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Shaym Nagar, Ward No. 08, Kawardha (Kabirdham), District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No. 2 & 4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.05 18:37:05 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. Issue an appropriate writ/writs, order or direction, quashing the impugned order/memo dated 27.11.2025 bearing No. IT/Nivida/2180/2025 (Annex.P-1) issued by the respondent No. 4, whereby the Bid number: GEM/2025/B/6805573, was cancelled; ii. Issue an appropriate writ/writs, order or direction, to the respondent No. 4, to open the bid of the petitioner in respect of the Bid number: GEM/2025/B/6805573, and to proceed further in accordance with terms and conditions of NIT; iii. Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed just, proper, and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of this petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 18.10.2025, respondent No.1 issued an E-NIT through the GeM portal bearing Bid 3 No. GEM/2025/B/6805573 for carrying out the work of “Handling, Transport and Other Mining Services – Percentage Quote Based – Handling Service” for the paddy procurement centre located at Bazar Charbhata, District Kabirdham (C.G.). It is submitted that the NIT clearly prescribed the last date for submission of bids as 18.11.2025 and required each bidder to furnish an EMD of Rs. 50,000/- along with various mandatory documents prescribed under the general conditions of contract. These documents included a valid local registration certificate, Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) code number, payment returns for the past three years (2022–23, 2023–24, 2024–25), GST registration, PAN card, income tax returns for the relevant years, and a list of at least twenty labourers proposed to be engaged for execution of the contract. According to learned counsel, these requirements were specific, exhaustive, and easily verifiable, thereby enabling only genuine and competent contractors to participate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner fully satisfied all the eligibility conditions, and therefore, participated in the tender process by submitting his bid well within the stipulated time. He asserts that the petitioner uploaded all the requisite documents as mandated and also duly deposited the EMD amount of Rs. 50,000/-. After submission of his bid, the petitioner was awaiting the scheduled opening of the tender, with the legitimate expectation that the respondents would process the tender strictly in accordance with the NIT conditions and the principles of fairness, transparency, and non- discrimination. It is submitted that the NIT categorically provided that the 4 technical bid would be opened on 18.11.2025 at 11:30 a.m. However, despite the clear schedule, the respondents did not open the tender on the specified date and time, nor did they issue any communication explaining the reason for such non-opening. The petitioner, being concerned about the unexplained deviation from the tender timeline, addressed a formal communication on 21.11.2025 requesting the respondents to open the bid as per the prescribed procedure and to proceed further with the tender process. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that to his shock and prejudice, respondent No. 4 responded vide communication dated 27.11.2025 informing him that the NIT itself had been cancelled solely on the ground that only a single bidder had participated in the tender. It is submitted that this reason is wholly untenable, especially because the respondents themselves had issued two separate tenders —Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6805573 and Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6806281— with identical conditions, and the petitioner had participated in both. The respondents issued the same cancellation communication for both tenders and proceeded to return the petitioner’s EMD. Learned counsel argues that this abrupt and unexplained cancellation reflects a complete disregard of the tender terms. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cancellation of the tender is in clear violation of the express conditions stipulated in the NIT. He points out that the tender specifically provided: “Minimum number of bids required to disable automatic bid extension – 5 1.” This condition clearly indicates that even in the eventuality of a single bid being received, the tender would not be automatically disabled or rendered invalid. Instead, the tendering authority was required to open the single bid and evaluate it in accordance with the tender terms. Therefore, cancelling the NIT solely because only one bidder participated is directly contrary to the tender’s own provisions and defeats the very purpose of including such a clause. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the respondents were legally obligated to open the bid submitted by the petitioner and to evaluate it on its merits. Their failure to do so, and the subsequent cancellation of the NIT solely due to single participation, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner had complied with every requirement of the tender, and therefore, had a legitimate expectation that his bid would be considered in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. He further submits that although the tender was published on the GeM portal and available to all prospective bidders, no other bidder chose to participate. However, the lack of participation by others cannot be used as a ground to penalize the petitioner or to cancel the entire tender process, especially when the tender conditions explicitly permit evaluation of a single bid. It is contended that the respondents cannot arbitrarily cancel the tender after inviting participation and after the petitioner acted upon such invitation by investing time, resources, and money. It is further submitted that the very inclusion of the clause “Minimum number of bids required 6 to disable automatic bid extension – 1” shows that the respondents had already anticipated the possibility of receiving only one bid. Therefore, cancellation on the very ground that the tender attracted a single bidder is illogical, contradictory, and unsustainable in law. The respondents, after incorporating such a clause, cannot now take a contrary stand. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by cancelling the tender after the petitioner’s valid participation, the respondents have deprived him of a legitimate opportunity to compete for and secure the contract. Such conduct on the part of State authorities—who are expected to act fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness—is violative of constitutional principles and the doctrine of fairness governing administrative actions. It is further submitted that the respondents did not publish any notice or announcement regarding cancellation of the tender on the portal or any public domain. The petitioner came to know of the cancellation only after he addressed a communication seeking clarification. This lack of transparency casts a serious doubt on the bona fides of the respondents and suggests that they may be attempting to favour someone who did not participate within the stipulated timeline. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, and unconstitutional. He contends that the cancellation of the tender is contrary to the tender conditions, violative of the petitioner’s rights, and indicative of an intent to facilitate undue advantage to some other party. Accordingly, the impugned cancellation deserves to be set aside. 7 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 4 submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the GeM clause relating to “minimum number of bids required to disable automatic bid extension” is wholly misconceived. It is contended that this clause is merely an internal system parameter governing the technical automation of the bid window between the GeM Portal and the procuring entity, and does not form part of the substantive eligibility conditions governing acceptance or evaluation of bids. It is further submitted that this clause does not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner to insist that a single bid be mandatorily opened or considered. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 4 that procurement by MARKFED is governed by the Chhattisgarh Government Store Purchase Rules, 2002, which are statutory in nature and binding upon the procuring authorities. Learned counsel places reliance upon Rule 4.3.3(D) relating to the open tender system, which mandates adequate competition as a condition precedent for a valid tender process. It is pointed out that the said Rule expressly requires participation of a minimum of three eligible bidders, and in the absence of such participation, the tendering authority is justified in cancelling the tender. The relevant Rule relied upon is reproduced in Hindi as follows: “¼n½ [kqyh fufonk i)fr esa izFke ckj vkeaf=r fufonkvksa esa njksa dh i;kZIr izfrLi/kkZ ,oa rqyuk lqfuf’pr~ fd;s tkus ds fy, ;g vko’;d gksxk fd de ls de rhu ewy fuekZrkvksa dh vksj ls 8 fuekZrk vFkok muds vf/k—r iznk;drkZ izfrfuf/k }kjk fufonk esa fgLlk fy;k tk dj U;wure rhu ik= fufonkdkjksa dk gksuk lqfuf’pr~ fd;k tkuk gksxkA” 11. It is thus submitted that since only one bidder participated in the instant tender, the very purpose of ensuring adequate competition and achieving price discovery stood defeated. Accordingly, the respondents were fully justified in cancelling the tender on 27.11.2025. It is further argued that the petitioner’s EMD has been refunded, reflecting complete bona fides on the part of the respondents. It is submitted that judicial interference in tender matters is extremely limited and is warranted only in cases involving manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions—none of which is made out in the present case. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 4 reiterates that the clause relied upon by the petitioner is nothing more than a system-generated operational condition on the GeM portal relating to bid extension mechanics and does not confer any substantive or enforceable right on any bidder. It is again emphasised that, in view of Rule 4.3.3(D) of the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, the participation of at least three eligible bidders is mandatory for open tenders. Since the present tender attracted only one participant, the tendering authority was statutorily empowered and justified in cancelling the tender in accordance with law. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 14. On meticulous consideration of the pleadings, documents and 9 rival submissions, this Court finds that the clause of the Bid Document relied upon by the petitioner, namely “Minimum number of bids required to disable automatic bid extension – 1”, is clearly a clause intended for the technical automation of the GeM bidding process. Its purpose is merely to govern the auto-extension mechanism of the bidding window and it does not, in any manner, override the statutory procurement framework of the State. It neither creates a vested or enforceable right in favour of the petitioner nor curtails the statutory discretion of the procuring authority to cancel the tender in the absence of competitive participation. 15. On the other hand, the Chhattisgarh Government Store Purchase Rules, 2002, which have statutory force and bind all State instrumentalities, specifically prescribe under Rule 4.3.3(D) that for an open tender system, participation of minimum three valid bidders is required to ensure fair competition and proper price discovery. In the absence of such minimum participation, the tender process may be annulled. The said statutory requirement directly applies to the tender conducted by MARKFED in the present case. 16. The Court further finds that the petitioner has neither challenged the validity of the Store Purchase Rules nor demonstrated that the impugned tender was exempted from their operation. When a statutory procurement rule mandates minimum competitive participation, any contrary clause of the GeM portal cannot supersede or override the statutory provisions. The decision of the respondents to cancel the 10 tender due to lack of sufficient competition, therefore, cannot be termed arbitrary, perverse or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner’s EMD was duly refunded, and there is no material suggesting any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the respondents. The scope of judicial review in tender matters is inherently limited and does not permit the Court to sit in appeal over administrative decisions unless manifest arbitrariness or illegality is shown, which is not established in the present case. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the action of respondents No. 2 and 4 in cancelling the tender vide communication dated 27.11.2025 is neither illegal nor arbitrary and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan