1 2025:CGHC:60222-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5462 of 2025 Gayatri Ventures A Partnership Firm, Having Its Office At Kadambari Nagar, Durg, District Durg, C.G. Through Its Partner- Ram Niwas Mittal, Aged About 62 Years, S/o Late Shri Prabhati Lal Mittald, R/o Mittal Niwas, H. No. 1, Kadambari Nagar, Dhamdha Road, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Raipur, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer (Tender Cell) Office Of The Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh 6 - R R Constructions And Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Krishna Puram, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034 Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.12.11 17:56:07 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhaya, Advocate For State(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General For Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/12/2025 1. The instant Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeks following reliefs: “i This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to Call for entire records pertaining to the subject matter. ii. This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to hold that, the action of the Respondent Authorities treating the Respondent No.6 as qualified, is illegal and violative of the Clause 2.13 (a) (xiii), Clause 2.13 (b) and Clause 2.15 of the conditions elaborated in the NIT. Iii. This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to hold that, the action of the Respondent Authorities treating the Respondent No.6 as qualified, is illegal and violative of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Arnav Projects and Infratech Vs State of Chhattisgarh, WPC 2289/2025. iv. This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased, to direct the Respondent Authorities to treat the Respondent No.6 as disqualified in the tender process initiated by Tender No. 173473 (First 3 Call), issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, for the "Construction of Head Work of Lamti Feeder Minor Tank Scheme. v. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings (Annexure P- 1) so far as it allows the representation of the Respondent No. 6 treating the Respondent No. 6 as qualified. vi. Cost of this petition be awarded to the petitioners. vii. Any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions and writ/writs as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the NIT dated 11/08/2025 issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh for construction of the Head Work of Lamti Feeder Minor Tank Scheme, valued at Rs. 13722.98 Lakhs, the petitioner along with other bidders including the respondent No.6 herein, participated in the tender process and submitted their respective bids. Upon opening of the bid, the candidature of respondent No. 6 was disqualified on the ground that he has deposited the EMD in the form of FDR in place of Demand Draft as has been enumerated in the tender clause 2.13. According to the petitioner, against the said disqualification, the respondent No. 6 submitted a representation and thereafter, the authorities declared respondent no. 6 as a qualified bidder, despite the fact that he has not submitted the bid in consonance with the terms and conditions of the NIT. It is urged that the Tender Committee mechanically accepted the 4 explanation of Respondent No.6 without proper application of mind and in complete disregard of the mandatory nature of the tender condition. Such relaxation to respondent No. 6 has resulted in unequal treatment, prejudicing the petitioner who duly complied with all requirements, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned decision is also in direct conflict with binding precedents of this Court, including WPC 2289/2025 (Arnav Projects and Infratech v. State of Chhattisgarh) and WPC 2616/2025, which categorically hold that a bidder from another State submitting EMD in the form of FDR is liable to be disqualified. It is contended that once a bidder stands disqualified for non-fulfilment of essential eligibility conditions, allowing him to re- enter the competition undermines the sanctity of the tender process, distorts the level playing field, and vitiates the fairness and transparency expected in public procurement. The petitioner further submits that despite specific representations highlighting these violations and placing relevant judicial orders on record, the Respondent Authorities failed to consider the same, rendering the impugned action unsustainable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for Respondent No.6 oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submit that Respondent No.6 has duly complied with all the terms and conditions of the tender document, and that the Tender Committee, upon due consideration of the materials placed before it, rightly found him to be qualified. It is further contended that the decision of the authorities is in accordance with the tender stipulations and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness, and therefore the award of the tender in favour 5 of Respondent No.6 calls for no interference. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It would be apt to quote clauses 2.13 & 2.15 of the tender document for adjudication of the present dispute, which is quoted below: “2.13 (a) Modes of deposit of earnest Money:-if the tenderer wishes to deposit the earnest money in anyone of the following forms, he may do so and produce/send the same duly hypothecated to the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION CHHUIKHADAN (C.G.) (i) Treasury Receipt (ii) National Saving Certificate (iii) Treasury Bonds (iv) Approved Interest Bearing Security (v) Government Promissory Notes/National Plan Loans (vi) Post office cash Certificate (vii) 10 years Treasury Saving Deposit Certificate (viii) 12 years National Plan Saving Certificate (ix) 10 years Defense Deposit Certificate (x) National Saving Certificates duly hypothecated in the names of the Executive Engineer. (xi) All small saving Securities and post Office saving Bank Account duly pledged to Executive Engineer. (xii) Debentures of C.G. Housing Board as approved by the M.P.F.D.No.1319/2306/IV-R- 5/75,dated17.10.75. 6 (xiii) Bank draft of the State Bank of India or scheduled Banks in case of tenderers of other states. (xiv) Units of Unit Trust of India. (xv) Bank draft issued by big Urban Bank whose working capital exceeds Rs. 5Crores and by A, Band C Class Central Co-operative Banks/Non- Schedule State Cooperative Banks subject to the condition that the drafts are encashed by the accepting authority as soon as they are received and the contracts are allotted only after the encashment of Drafts as per M.P.F.D. No. F/3/18/77/8/5/4Date13.02.1973. 2.13 (b) The inviting tenderer from other state may submit the earnest money in form of bank draft of the state Bank of India or any other scheduled bank to the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION CHHUIKHADAN (C.G.) XXX XXX XXX 2.15 Earnest Money for Tenders from other State: The intending Tenderer from other States may remit the Earnest Money in the form of Bank Draft of the State Bank of India or any other scheduled bank in favour of the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION CHHUIKHADAN, DISTT. KHAIRAGARH-CHHUIKHADAN- GANDAI (CG). It will be responsibility of the tenderer to get the validity of the Bank Draft extended atleast one month prior to the expiry date from time to time, failing which the Bank Draft shall be encashed by the Engineer-in-Charge one month before the expiry date of Bank Draft and cash accrued shall beat the disposal of the 7 Government.” 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid clauses make it clear that intending tenderers from other States may submit the earnest money in form of bank draft of the state Bank of India or any other scheduled bank to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Chhuikhadan (C.G.) 7. At this stage, it is apposite to notice that this very question has already been considered by this Court in Arnav Projects and Infratech v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 2289/2025. In the said decision, this Court categorically held that a bidder from another State cannot submit EMD in the form of an FDR and that such a bidder is liable to be disqualified for non-compliance with Clause 2.6 of the tender conditions therein. This Court further held that the requirement of a Bank Draft for out-of- State bidders is a mandatory eligibility condition, not a curable defect, and that relaxation of such a condition would violate the principles of fairness and equal treatment in public tendering. 8. The facts of the present case stand on all four corners with the said judgment. Respondent No.6, being a firm from outside the State of Chhattisgarh, was mandatorily required to deposit EMD in the form of a Bank Draft of the State Bank of India or any other scheduled Bank. Instead, Respondent No.6 submitted an FDR, which is in direct contravention of Clause 2.13 & 2.15. The action of the authorities in treating respondent No.6 as qualified is inconsistent with the binding precedent of this Court in WPC 2289/2025 as well as with the tender conditions herein and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, and since Respondent No.6 failed to fulfill an 8 essential and mandatory eligibility requirement of the tender condition, his participation in the tender process is illegal. The deviation permitted to Respondent No.6 undermines the integrity of the tender process and is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The proceeding (Annexure-P/1), with respect to declaring respondent No.6 as qualified, is quashed. The Respondent Authorities shall proceed further strictly in accordance with the terms and condition of the subject NIT. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri