1 2025:CGHC:59345-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1078 of 2020 M/s Techno Prints Through Its Proprietor M/s Techno Prints Office At Behind Banjari Mata Mandir Near Heera Steel Rawabhata Industrial Area Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation Through Its Managing Director Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Premises of Chattisgarh Board of Secondary Education Pensionbada Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Premises of Chattisgarh Board of Secondary Education Pensionbada Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Software) For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arijit Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey , Judge 05.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 heard Mr. Arijit Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): A. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction thereby directing the respondents to produce the entire records before the Hon'ble Court. B. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby quashing the impugned order No. 300/TBC/Misc.Printing/75/2020 dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure P/1) and order No. 4833/TBC/Misc.Printing/179/2020 dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P/2). C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed. 3. The facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner firm is a proprietorship firm engaged in printing and publishing business. The petitioner firm is one out of the 30 firms/companies registered with the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation for printing works. The respondent Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation is a body registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973 and has its own by laws and rules. Copy of the registration certificate is Annexure P/3. The scheme of the act 1973 and provisions therein clearly provide that a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973 is a body corporate and the state government has no role in the functioning of society and is not the department of the government. 3 The Textbook Corporation invites Tender for distribution and supply of free of cost textbooks to the pupils of all the government schools of the Chhattisgarh on yearly basis and as far as the other Educational materials for various state instrumentalities such as Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Samagra Shiksha Mission, State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and other Educational institutions are concerned item rate Tenders are invited for period of three years. As per the item rate contract/Tender various printing firms/companies registered with the Textbook Corporation are declared successful (L-1) as per the specifications and parameters of the printing work. The Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation issued notice for printing and distributions of miscellaneous materials in the year 2013- 14 and the successful bidders were continuously given the printing work as and when required by the respondent corporation. In the subsequent meetings of the Executive Board of the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation it was resolved that the successful bidders of the Tender held earlier would be given the orders for printing and distribution at the rates finalized for the session 2013-14 and it was further resolved that fresh Tenders for item rate contract with respect to miscellaneous printing would be finalized very soon. Subsequently, in the 54th and 55th meeting of the Executive Board of the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation taking into consideration the rates prevalent in the previous academic sessions it was resolved to issue fresh Tenders for the subject work. Subsequently pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Board in the 54th and 55th meeting notice inviting Tender bearing e-Tender notice No. P-4/18-19 dated 14.04.2018 for printing and distribution of miscellaneous materials for year 2018-19 to 2020-21 4 was issued. A copy of the e-Tender notice No. P-4/18-19 dated 14.04.2018 is Annexure P/4. The petitioner firm being successful in various rate contracts and declared L-1 and the respondent corporation started awarding work contracts to the petitioner firm for the printing and distribution of study materials as and when required by the various educational institutions. The petitioner firm was issued work order for printing and distribution of module booklets for SCERT and the petitioner was directed to supply the same to the office of district Education Officer various districts. Copy of the work order dated 20.01.2020 is Annexure P/5. Petitioner firm successfully executed the partial work issued to it and supplied the relevant study material as per the requirements by the respondent corporation. Copies of the receipt of the supply made by the petitioner firm to some of the agencies is Annexure P/6. Copies of the executed work order and invoice are hereby collectively is Annexure- P/7. The respondent corporation without affording of any opportunity of hearing and without adhering the principles of natural of justice vide Annexure P/2, cancelled some of the work orders issued in favour of the petitioner firm in a most arbitrary and whimsical manner in a situation where the petitioner firm has arranged all the periphernalia and has purchased the basic raw materials for execution of the existing and the future contracts for the academic session 2020-21. To add to the further astonishment and agony to the petitioner firm the respondent corporation vide impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 18.03.2020 cancelled the entire Tender awarded to the petitioner firm by a non speaking order passed in a most capricious manner. Hence, this petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5 impugned order lacks reasoning as also the application of mind by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner firm has not been issued with any show cause or any explanation has been sought from the petitioner firm before passing of the impugned order and since the impugned orders have civil consequences the absence of any calling of representation or explanation from the petitioner firm is virtually a denial of being heard before passing of any adverse orders and thus is in contravention to the principles of audi alteram partem as also the constitutional guarantees. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 are without jurisdiction and the same has been passed in most arbitrary manner behind the back of the petitioner. The impugned orders have been passed by the respondent No. 1 without any jurisdiction and in a most capricious manner overlooking the fact that the said authority has no powers to cancel the work orders as well as the entire Tender. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation which is a registered society has its own bylaws and rules in the name of Chhattisgarh Pathyapustak Nigam Niyam, 2004. Rule 15 (2) (ट), Rule 15 (2) (ส) and 15 (2) (द) are very much relevant in the case in hand as the impugned orders have been passed in utter violation of the above stated provisions. The copy of rules are Annexure P/8. The work order issued to the petitioner firm nowhere provides for the cancellation of the same at the instance of the respondent No. 1 acting in administrative capacity and the same has been passed without there being any approval from the Executive Body. Respondent No. 1, the Managing Director of the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation exceeding the jurisdiction vested in law as the rule 18 (5) of the rules 2004 do not empower or authorize Managing Director of the respondent corporation 6 to either cancel the work order or cancel the entire Tender without placing the same for approval before the Executive Board of the respondent corporation. The said rule only provides that the Managing Director would prepare the details of the meeting/proceedings of the General Body and the Executive Board of the respondent corporation and would ensure the compliance of the decisions taken in the said meeting. The impugned order has been issued in the most cavalier fashion overlooking the fact that the petitioner being successful bidder was declared L-1 and has been awarded various work orders and has successfully executed the same. The petitioner being a successful bidder has successfully accomplished the work allotted to it and without there being any complaint with regard to quality, timely supply of the educational material or any other complaint with regard to the work of the petitioner firm from the respective agencies, the respondent No. 1 has cancelled all the work orders vide order dated 13.03.2019 (Annexure P/2) without affording any opportunity of hearing and without taking into consideration the fact that some of the work order cancelled vide (Annexure P/2) have been partially executed and without there being any rhyme and reason has within a period of five days abruptly cancelled the entire Tender vide order dated 18.03.2020 vide Annexure P/1 detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The impugned orders have been passed with premeditated and closed mind, prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner firm without any authority of law and has been by the authority usurping the jurisdiction not vested by rules of 2004. So, the impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 are liable to be quashed/set aside. 5. Mr. Arijit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this 7 petition is filed by the petitioner/firm on the false and frivolous grounds and all the allegations are false, baseless and devoid of any merits whatsoever, liable to be dismissed at the threshold. A NIT bearing e- Tender Notice No. P-4/2018-2019 was floated by the Answering Respondent No.1 with last date of Physical submission Bid at TBC Raipur (Technical & Financial) on 07.05.2018 at 17:05 IST That clause (17) of the NIT provides for arbitration. A copy of Tender document is Annexure R/2. In light of the above provision contained in the Tender Document, it is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner did not approach this Hon'ble Court with clean hands but rather skipped all the remedies available to him, even in the declaration contained in Para No.5 of the petition, the petitioner has made false averment on record that the petitioner has exhausted his remedy, but in reality he has never approached for arbitration before the respondents which is an alternate remedy provided in the provisions of Tender itself, whereby, the Arbitrator shall be Secretary School Education. The NIT was floated for a period of expiry of "3" years on a contractual basis and clause (11) of the NIT provides three years’ term. The petitioner’s firm was registered with the respondents for a period of three years from 18.07.2016 to 17.07.2019 which the petitioner did not renew, which is clear from registration letter dated 18.07.2016 (Annexure R/3). The committee was constituted by the respondents consisting of President and other members to examine the rates received in the Tender issued by the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation for various works including the miscellaneous printing Tenders. Therefore, an internal inquiry by virtue of order dated 10.02.2020 was conducted by the Committee to test the Tender process for various printing works in which various 8 discrepancies were found. Therefore, the rates fixed by the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation for miscellaneous printing work are not legally valid and contrary to the austerity provisions of Chhattisgarh Government Stores Purchase Rules and Chhattisgarh Financial Code Rules-09 (Standard Principles of Financial Proprietary). The copy of the order dated 10.02.2020 is Annexure-R/4. A letter dated 13.03.2020 was sent to the Petitioner regarding the objective of repealing the printing program of module books under loyalty training program whereby, the work order dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure P/5 of the Petition) and SCERT Letter no.116 dated 15.01.2020 was cancelled with immediate effect. The copy of the Letter dated 13.03.2020 is Annexure R/5. The Tender No.P-4/2018-2019 issued by Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Raipur in respect of 03 years (2018-19 to 2020- 21) of miscellaneous printing and distribution work in the year 2018-19 due to violation of the Procedure and provisions prescribed in the Government of Chhattisgarh, Finance Department's stores Purchase Rules-2002 (Amended 2004) and found to be defective in investigation. On the basis of the said Tender, the rates prescribed for various printing works are hereby disqualified with immediate effect. The copy of order dated 18.03.2020 is Annexure-R/6. A representation was made by the petitioner to the respondents on 30.04.2020 with regard to cancellation of his work order dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure P/5 of the Petition), to which the respondents through letter dated 18.05.2020 had sent their reply and it was conveyed to the Petitioner, that its firm was one of those whose work orders were cancelled because the sample of the book or any record of it was not found/submitted with the office of the Corporation along with any information with regard to the 9 commencement of their work as per their work order, and also for the irregularities which were found by the committee in their investigation report of petitioner like firms. Copy of representation dated 30.04.2020 with reply dated 18.05.2020 is Annexure R/7. The empanelment is nothing but listing of contractors for the requirement of the corporation and which also makes them eligible for participation of Tenders floated by the corporation. Furthermore, empanelment cannot determine the rates for purchase etc. The rates are determined as per the norms described and in accordance of State purchase rules 2002 (amended 2004). Therefore, after internal inquiry the NIT/Tender was cancelled as Para 1 & 30 of the Tender are contradictory to each other. Furthermore, disciplinary action is proposed against the members of the Tender committee. He further submits that after the Tender which has been challenged by the petitioner, two tenders have been floated, hence the matter is old and state, so this petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil 1 , Gail (India) Ltd. vs. Gujarat State Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. 2 , Joshi Technologies International vs. Union of India 3 & Union Bank of India vs. Panchanan Subudhi 4 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material available on record. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is one out of the 30 firms/companies registered with the Chhattisgarh 1 (2000) 6 SCC 293 2 (2014) 1 SCC 329 3 (2015) 7 SCC 728 4 (2010) 15 SCC 552 10 Textbook Corporation/respondents for printing works and the respondents without any opportunity of hearing cancelled the previous work order as per Annexures P/1 and P/2. 8. The respondents filed copy of NIT as Annexure R/2, the Clause (17), which is provided as under:- (17)- Any dispute related to this tender and arising out of terms and conditions thereof will be subject to arbitration at first instance wherein arbitrator shall be Secretary School Education. In case dispute between parties shall still persists after procedure of arbitration then the matter will be subject to Honorable High Court of Chhattisgarh. 9. The law in respect of interference by the Courts in Tender matters is well settled. The Apex Court in the matter of Kerala SEB (supra) held in para 11 as under:- “ 11. A statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions. Dispute arising out of the terms of such contracts or alleged breaches have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body will not by itself affect the principles to be applied. The disputes about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the Contract Act. Every 11 act of a statutory body need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power. Statutory bodies, like private parties, have power to contract or deal with property Such activities may not raise any issue of public law. In the present case, it has not been shown how the contract is statutory. The contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory disputes relating interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter for adjudication by a civil court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Whether any amount is due and if so, how much and refusal of the appellant to pay it is justified or not, are not the matters which could have been agitated and decided in a writ petition. The contractor should have relegated to other remedies.” 10. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Gail (India) Ltd. (supra) in para 28, which reads as under:- “ 28. We also agree with Shri Nariman that the remedy of arbitration available to the respondent under Para 15.5 of the GSA was an effective alternative remedy and the High Court should not have entertained the petition filed under Article 226 12 of the Constitution of India. The contents of the GSA, the price side letters and the correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the respondent give a clue of the complex nature of the price fixation mechanism. Therefore, the High Court should have relegated the respondent to the remedy of arbitration and the Arbitral Tribunal could have decided complicated dispute between the parties by availing the services of experts. Unfortunately, the High Court presumed that the negotiations held between the appellant and the respondent were not fair and that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the policy decision taken by the Government of India despite the fact that had not only challenged that decision but had also shown disinclination to accept the offer made by the appellant to supply gas at the pooled price and had insisted on mutually agreed price.” 11. It is clear from Clause (17) that the arbitrator shall be Secretary School Education and in case dispute between the parties shall still persists after procedure of arbitration, then the matter will be subjected to Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, but petitioner directly filed this petition before this Court without availing the remedy of arbitration. 12. This Court has observed vide order dated 02.12.2025 in WPC No. 6095 of 2025 in the matter of M/s Shri Buildcon Builders vs. Central Mine Planning and others in paras 24, 26 & 27 of sub para 15, which 13 reads as under:- 24 .In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India 5 , this Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action. “ 94.The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body 5 (1994) 6 SCC 651 14 functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi- administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others 6 ', this Court after discussing number of judgments laid down two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters. They are:- "22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;" (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are 6 (2007) 14 SCC 517 15 in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of faimess in action." 27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others 7 ", while observing that the government contracts granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: - “ 50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in government contracts, if granted by the government bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest." 7 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574 16 13. In the light of above cited judgments, it is clear that the previous order was cancelled after internal inquiry and it was found that para 1 and para 30 of the Tender are contradictory to each other and also two Tenders have been floated and the petitioner did not avail remedy of arbitration, so this petition is without any merit. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost (s). 15. Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the fresh NIT floated by the respondents, in case he fulfills the terms and conditions of the said NIT. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Uttej/Amit