1 2025:CGHC:60541-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6151 of 2025 Anjay Joshi S/o Byas Narayan Joshi Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 156, Ward No. 45, Bajrang Chowk, Arvind Nagar, Post Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate of Geology And Mining Through Director, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mining Officer District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.12 16:25:16 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned cancellation order dated 14.11.2025 (Annex. P/1) and any further proceedings pursuant to the cancellation in the interest of Justice. ii. That, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the tender bearing Bid Number: MSTC/RPR/Chhattisgarh/Raigarh Tender/4/25-26/36027 and issue Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner based on the declared result dated 11.11.2025 1 the interest of justice. iii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to Ν.Ι.Τ. Bid Number:- MSTC/RPR/Chhattisgarh/Raigarh Tender/4/25-26/36027. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent No.3 issued a Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.) in District Raigarh for conducting an electronic reverse auction for allotment of Ordinary Sand Excavation Lease Mines in accordance with Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Excavation and Business) Rules, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2025”). As per the N.I.T., five Ordinary Sand Excavation Patuttas 3 situated at (i) Barbhauna, Tehsil Kharsia, (ii) Baisi, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, (iii) Kambanpur, Tehsil Gharghora, (iv) Lebra, Tehsil Raigarh, and (v) Pusalya, Tehsil Chhal were proposed to be allotted through the online reverse auction process. The N.I.T. further provided that eligible bidders were required to submit their technical and financial bids exclusively through the MSTC online portal between 31.10.2025 and 06.11.2025 (up to 05:30 PM). 4. The petitioner duly submitted his bid on 06.11.2025 along with all requisite documents and deposited the bid security amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Pursuant to the procedure laid down in the N.I.T., a draw of lots (lottery) was conducted on 11.11.2025 wherein 510 eligible participants took part, and the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder. However, to the utter shock and prejudice of the petitioner, respondent No.3 abruptly cancelled the entire tender process on 14.11.2025, i.e., after three days of declaring the petitioner as successful, without assigning any just, fair, or reasonable cause. The impugned cancellation order (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 is wholly arbitrary, perverse, malafide, and appears to have been passed with an intent to favour certain preferred persons, thereby vitiating the entire tender process. 5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 abruptly cancels the entire 4 tender process without assigning a single reason. It is a settled principle of administrative law that every administrative decision affecting civil rights must disclose the reasons forming its basis; absence of reasons renders such decision arbitrary and unsustainable. Reliance is placed on Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496. It is submitted that the petitioner having already been declared the winner on 11.11.2025, cancellation of the process without justification manifestly violates the mandate of fairness and non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that once the petitioner successfully submitted his bid on 06.11.2025, complied with all tender requirements, participated along with 510 eligible candidates, and was declared the successful bidder through the departmental portal on 11.11.2025, a legitimate expectation arose that the tender process would culminate in issuance of the allotment order. Abrupt cancellation after the declaration of result, without any notice or reason, frustrates the petitioner’s legitimate expectation and is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Paranjpe contends that no notice, opportunity of hearing, or show-cause was provided to the petitioner prior to cancellation of the NIT. Even assuming that the authority intended to revisit or rescind the process, adherence to the principle of audi alteram partem was mandatory. Orders entailing civil consequences 5 cannot be passed in violation of natural justice. Reliance is placed on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. On this ground alone, the impugned order stands vitiated. 8. It is also contended by Mr. Paranjpe that although the State possesses the power to cancel a tender in appropriate circumstances, such power must be exercised for reasons grounded in public interest or on account of demonstrable irregularity in the process, as held in Michigan Rubber v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216. In the present case, (a) no public-interest reason is disclosed, (b) no irregularity in the tender procedure is recorded, and (c) no defect in the petitioner’s bid or eligibility has been pointed out. The cancellation order is thus non- speaking and arbitrary, warranting judicial interference. 9. It is urged by Mr. Paranjpe that the tender was cancelled within three days of the petitioner being declared the successful bidder out of 510 participants. The sudden and unexplained cancellation gives rise to a reasonable presumption of malafides and an attempt to favour some other individual. Any administrative action actuated by extraneous considerations is liable to be struck down, as held in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212. 10. Further, Mr. Paranjpe submits that since the NIT was issued under Rule 7 of the 2025 Rules, the authorities were bound to adhere to the statutory framework once the tender process commenced and 6 the result was declared. Cancellation without invoking any provision of the Rules or pointing out any breach of Rule 7 amounts to an illegal and colourable exercise of power. As such, it is submitted that the action of respondent No.3 is wholly arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and contrary to settled principles of tender jurisprudence, thereby necessitating the intervention of this Court. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the instant petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Collector, Mining, Raigarh, whereby the tender proceedings for grant of mining lease of Sand Quarry situated at Lebra, Tehsil and District Raigarh, were cancelled on account of a bonafide mistake relating to the consideration of candidature of a valid bidder. 12. It is submitted by Mr. Das that a NIT was floated on 10.10.2025 for calling bids for five Sand Mines by way of E-auction, namely, Sand Mines situated at Berbhouna, Baisy, Kanchapur, Lebra and Pusalda. Each Sand Mine had a separate event number, and the auctions were independent of each other. The bidding process for Berbhouna, Baisy, Kanchapur, and Pusalda was carried out successfully, and the successful bidders were duly evaluated and 7 selected through e-lottery. No dispute arises in respect of the aforesaid Sand Mines, and allotments have already commenced. Regarding the Sand Mine situated at Lebra, Raigarh, it is submitted that out of 510 candidates, 13 were found ineligible and two candidates had already been allotted other Sand Mines, leaving 495 candidates eligible to participate. Out of these, 493 candidates submitted their bids at the minimum bidding amount of Rs. 53/M³, while two candidates submitted bids above the minimum. The petitioner, Anjay Joshi, was selected as a successful bidder through online lottery on 11.11.2025. 13. It is submitted by Mr. Das that on 12.11.2025, one candidate, Vivek Kumar Patel S/o Champat Lal Patel, intimated that he had been erroneously declared ineligible despite his documents being correct. His grievance was also submitted in writing via Whatsapp on 13.11.2025 (Annexure R/1). On examination, it was found that there were two candidates with similar names: (i) Vivek Patel S/o Rohit Kumar Patel [PAN FSMPP4857B, Reg. 582579] and (ii) Vivek Kumar Patel S/o Champat Lal Patel [PAN CIGPP8039Q, Reg. 584811]. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Das that the online auction was conducted for the first time, and due to a bonafide administrative error, the candidature of Vivek Kumar Patel S/o Champat Lal Patel was erroneously rejected. The ineligible candidate (Vivek Patel S/o Rohit Kumar Patel) had participated in his place. Upon 8 discovering the error, and after noting that neither of the two candidates approached the committee post-declaration, the Tender Committee, after due deliberation, decided to cancel the tender for Lebra Sand Mine to ensure fairness and public interest (Annexures R/2 and R/3). He further submits that fresh proceedings will be initiated upon grant of permission by this Court. The petitioner may participate afresh in the auction, and the application fee of Rs. 10,000/- will be duly considered. The bidding amount already submitted by the petitioner will be refunded. 15. It is contended by Mr. Das that the Collector and the State Government have approved a procedure for conducting NITs for Sand Mines. Clause 7 of the procedure and Rule 7(5) of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2025, empower the Collector to take final decisions in case of disputes during the auction process, and such decisions are binding on all parties (Annexure R/4). It is respectfully submitted that the respondents have acted in a fair, bonafide, and non- discriminatory manner. The petitioner has failed to establish any substantial ground to challenge the cancellation of the tender. The respondents, therefore, submit that the instant petition is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 16. At this stage, Mr. Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel refers to Annexure R/3, the document annexed by the learned State 9 counsel and submits that the petitioner, Shri Anjay Joshi, has committed no fault in the tender process for Lebra Sand Mine, Raigarh. The cancellation arose solely due to a technical and administrative error in the MSTC online portal, where two bidders bore similar names, resulting in an ineligible candidate being considered for the financial bid while the eligible petitioner was inadvertently excluded. The tender committee, recognizing that the petitioner was not at fault and to ensure fairness and transparency, proposed cancellation of the tender and initiation of a fresh process, in accordance with Rule 7(5) of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Excavation and Business) Rules, 2025, and clause 7.0 of the tender notice format. 17. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 cancelling the tender is arbitrary, unsustainable, and deserves to be quashed, with directions to restore the petitioner as the successful bidder and regularize the allotment in accordance with law. 18. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully examined the material on record, including the N.I.T., the Rules of 2025, the communications on the MSTC portal, and the rival submissions advanced by the petitioner as well as the State/respondents. 19. The facts emerging from the record demonstrate that the petitioner, Shri Anjay Joshi, participated in the e-auction process 10 for the allotment of the Lebra Sand Mine in strict compliance with the N.I.T. dated 10.10.2025 and the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Excavation and Business) Rules, 2025. The petitioner submitted his technical and financial bids, along with the requisite bid security, within the stipulated timeframe. Pursuant to the lottery conducted on the MSTC online portal on 11.11.2025, Shri Anjay Joshi was declared the successful bidder. The petitioner, therefore, acquired a legitimate expectation that the process would be completed in accordance with law and that the results of the e-auction would be implemented. 20. The impugned order dated 14.11.2025, issued by respondent No.3, abruptly cancelled the tender three days after the declaration of the petitioner as the successful bidder. The order is silent as to the reasons for cancellation and does not indicate that any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of administrative law that any administrative action affecting civil rights must disclose reasons; failure to do so renders the action arbitrary and unsustainable. The absence of reasons in the impugned order and the failure to follow the principle of audi alteram partem make the cancellation per se arbitrary. 21. It is not disputed that an administrative error occurred in relation to another bidder, wherein two candidates with similar names were involved, and one eligible candidate was erroneously declared 11 ineligible. This error arose entirely due to technical and procedural issues in the MSTC online portal and was in no manner attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing and had fully complied with all requirements of the N.I.T. and statutory rules. 22. The cancellation of the tender, therefore, has caused unwarranted prejudice to the petitioner, frustrating his legitimate expectation, and is manifestly contrary to the mandate of fairness, equality, and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is settled law that administrative authorities must exercise powers reasonably, fairly, and in accordance with the statutory scheme. In tender jurisprudence, while the State has the power to cancel a tender, such power must be exercised on valid grounds of public interest, demonstrable irregularity, or violation of statutory provisions. In the present case, no public-interest rationale has been recorded, no irregularity is attributable to the petitioner, and no breach of the Rules of 2025 has been pointed out. 23. The record further shows that the tender process for the other four Sand Mines proceeded smoothly, and the successful bidders were duly allotted their respective mines. The disruption in respect of the Lebra Sand Mine was entirely technical and procedural. The action of the authorities in cancelling the tender post- declaration of the petitioner as the successful bidder is, therefore, unsustainable. 12 24. Having regard to the above, the petitioner has demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to relief. The impugned order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) cancelling the tender for the Lebra Sand Mine is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner as the successful bidder and take all necessary steps to regularize the allotment in accordance with the result declared on 11.11.2025. 25. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu