1 2025:CGHC:58772-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6303 of 2025 M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. F-62, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Taluk, District- Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu Through Its Vice President Mr. Balaji Sridhar, S/o Sridha K., Aged 39 Years, Vice President, M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited, Plot No. F-62, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, District- Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu. --- Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, A State Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking, Having Its Registered Office At Vidyut Sewa Bhawan Dangania, Raipur C.G. 2 - Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan Dangania, Raipur C.G. 3 - Superintending Engineer (O & M) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan Dangania, Raipur C.G. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.05 10:43:21 +0530 2 4 - Executive Director (S & P Gen.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan Dangania, Raipur C.G. 5 - Chief Engineer (Gen.), Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power Station, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Marwa, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 6 - M/s Sch Hydraulics Private Limited, Tasiowa Industrial Park, Phase-1, 142-143, Kancheepuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. --- Respondent(s) and WPC No. 6304 of 2025 1 - M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. F-62, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Distt. Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu Through Its Vice President Mr. Balaji Sridhar, S/o Sridha K., Aged 39 Years, Vice President, M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited, Plot No. F-62, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Distt. Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, A State Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking, Having Its Registered Office At Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer (HR) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 3 - Superintending Engineer (O & M) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Director (S & P Gen.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Engineer (Gen.) Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power Station, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Marwa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - M/s Sch Hydraulics Private Limited Tasiowa Industrial Park, Phase 1, 142-143, Kancheepuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 04.12.2025 1. In WPC No.6303 of 2025, the petitioner is seeking quashment of E-Tender Notice No.TN-366/MW-451/25-26 dated 10/11/2025 issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure P/1) and also sought a direction towards the respondent no.1 to 5 to float Open Tender to the eligible participants for reconditioning with replacement of requisites spares and thereafter Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) 4 of various failed Hydraulic Motors and hydraulic pumps installed at CHP, ABVTPS, CSPGCL, Marwa whereas in WPC No.6304 of 2025, the petitioner is seeking quashment of E-Tender Notice No.TN-342/MP-426/25-26 dated 22/10/2025 issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure P/1) and also sought a direction towards the respondent no.1 to 5 to float Open Tender to the eligible participants for procurement of various types of Hydraulic Motor and Pumps and its spares installed at CHP, ABVTPS, Marwa. 2. Since both the petitions have been filed on the same issue, they are being considered and decided together by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPC No. 6303 of 2025 are being referred. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), duly included in the Approved Vendor List of respondent No.1. Respondent No.4, through a Limited Tender Process, issued E-Tender Notice vide Annexure - P/1 to the petitioner and respondent No.6 for reconditioning, replacement of requisite spares, and subsequent Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) of various failed hydraulic motors and hydraulic pumps installed at CHP, ABVTPS, CSPGCL, Marwa. Although the petitioner is the OEM and an approved vendor, respondent No.6 is neither an OEM nor does it fulfil the 5 prescribed General Terms and Conditions of the tender specifications. Despite this, respondent No.4 limited the tender participation only to the petitioner and respondent No.6, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to public policy, particularly since respondent No.1 is a Government undertaking and public funds are involved. Further submission of the petitioner that respondent No.4 ought to have issued an open tender through proper advertisement with appropriate qualifying requirements, as is the practice of PSUs and Navratna companies, to ensure wider participation and fair competition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No.4 in issuing E-Tender vide Annexure-P/1 only to the petitioner and respondent No.6 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles governing public procurement. It is contended that restricting the tender to two entities defeats the very object of ensuring fair competition and transparency. It is further submitted that despite being fully aware that respondent No.6 does not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed in the General Terms and Conditions, and is not included in the Approved List of OEMs maintained by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 has nonetheless permitted respondent No.6 to participate in the tender, thereby demonstrating clear arbitrariness and malafides. Learned counsel further argues that since the respondents are Government Undertakings and deal with public funds, they are bound to adopt an open and 6 competitive tendering process by inviting bids from all eligible participants, instead of issuing a limited tender to select entities. Hence, the present petition has been filed and the same deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the bidding process has not yet been completed and the tender proceedings are still at a preliminary stage. It is contended that no final decision has been taken with respect to awarding of the contract and, therefore, the present petition is premature. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the applicable procurement rules and internal requirements, and the limited tender was issued keeping in view the technical nature of the work and operational exigencies. It is also submitted that mere issuance of a tender does not confer any vested right upon the petitioner, and unless the process ended up in a final award, interference by this Court is unwarranted. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the other documents appended with the writ petition. 7. It is the trite law that the Court should not interfere in tender matters unless the Government's decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, malicious, or suffers from mala fides. It should 7 exercise restraint and avoid substituting its judgment for the administrative authority's, especially when it comes to the technical and commercial aspects of the tendering process. The court's role is not to act as an employer but to ensure the process adheres to fairness and is not discriminatory. The Government has broad discretion in setting the terms of a tender. It is also the settled law that the Courts lack the specialized expertise to evaluate technical and commercial contract decisions and should not second-guess the employer's choices. Judicial review of tender matters is a limited power, and interference is only warranted for clear-cut cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, or bias. 8. In the case at hand, after considering the rival submissions and upon examining the documents placed on record, this Court finds that both the writ petitions have been filed at a stage when the tender proceedings are still in progress and no final decision has yet been taken by the respondents with regard to the award of the contract. Further perusal of the record does not disclose any concluded action or determination adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner. The allegations of arbitrariness and illegality are, at this stage, founded merely on apprehensions rather than on any crystallized or final decision of the authorities. In the absence of any final or enforceable action, the petitioner cannot seek intervention of this Court in anticipation of future steps. 8 9. It is well-settled that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised at an emerging stage of administrative or tender processes, particularly when no right has vested in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court holds that both the writ petitions are premature and not maintainable at this stage. 10. This Court further observes that judicial review in matters relating to tender processes is limited and is ordinarily invoked only when clear arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions is demonstrable from a final decision or action of the authority concerned. Since the tender process has not yet culminated and the respondents are still within their administrative domain to evaluate bids and take further steps, interference at this stage would be inappropriate and unwarranted. The petitioner can still challenge any adverse or illegal action if something actually happens when the tender is finalized. Presently the matter is at pre mature stage. Therefore, both these writ petitions do not require any further consideration at this stage. 11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed as being premature. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law, if so desired and if any cause of action subsequently arises. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar