1 2026:CGHC:19816-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1992 of 2026 M/s Sunil Kumar Agrawal Through Proprietor Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Office At-Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Water Resource Department, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Engineer (Tender Cell) O/o EinC Shivanth Bhawan North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Water Resource Department, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) 6 - M/s Ram Shiromani Tiwari Through- Proprietor Ram Shiromani, Office At-Vardhman Nagar, House No. 103, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms.Hamida Siddique, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5/State : Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate General with Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.30 10:11:55 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.04.2026 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General along with Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate Geneal appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/State. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the disqualification e-mail issued to the petitioner by Respondent no. 4. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority may allow the participation in Tender no, 186416 NIT No. 08/SAC/25-26, Dated 06.03.2026. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the "Bid Capacity Document" of the petitioner accordance with clause 1.3 of the NIT and applicable law. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities open & evaluate the technical bid of the petitioner. 10.5 That, That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities if technical bid of the 3 Petitioner is found to be L1 then he may be declared L1 in place of the Respondent no. 6 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent Department issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for civil works, for which the petitioner, being fully eligible, submitted his bid within time along with all requisite documents in Envelope ‘A’ and ‘B’, duly complying with all conditions including Clause 1.3 relating to bid capacity. The petitioner has substantial experience in execution of similar civil engineering works and has successfully completed projects for the respondent department. All required certificates, including pre-bid qualification and work experience, were duly submitted and are verifiable as per the NIT. Despite full compliance with the tender conditions, the petitioner was arbitrarily disqualified without any specific reason being communicated. The impugned e-mail is vague and does not disclose the grounds of disqualification. 4. Upon receiving the impugned communication, the petitioner immediately submitted a detailed representation along with additional supporting documents; however, the respondents failed to consider the same and proceeded with the tender process. The respondent authorities thereafter declared Respondent No. 6 as L1, despite the petitioner quoting a significantly lower bid amount (₹23.29 crore approx.) compared to Respondent No. 6 (₹25.00 crore approx.), resulting in a substantial loss to the public 4 exchequer. The petitioner’s disqualification does not fall within any of the grounds specified under Clause 2.1.6 of the NIT, and no deficiency or false information has been attributed to him. 5. The petitioner has previously participated in similar tenders with identical documentation and has been declared successful, demonstrating consistency and credibility in his qualifications. The action of the respondents is arbitrary, non-transparent, and violative of principles of natural justice, as no reasons for disqualification have been furnished and relevant materials have been ignored. The impugned action is also violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it denies a level playing field and unfairly excludes the petitioner from the tender process. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the doctrine of level playing field, which mandates that all similarly placed bidders must be afforded equal and fair opportunity in matters of public contracts. The petitioner, being fully eligible, has been unfairly excluded. It is contended that the disqualification of the petitioner is ex facie illegal, as no deficiency or defect in the documents submitted by him has been pointed out. The impugned e-mail is vague and reflects a pre-determined intent to exclude the petitioner from the tender process. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner in 5 compliance with Clause 1.3 (Bid Capacity) clearly establishes that the petitioner fulfilled all eligibility criteria. The disqualification, therefore, is wholly unjustified. 7. It is further submitted that even after receipt of the impugned communication, the petitioner promptly submitted a detailed representation along with additional supporting documents. However, the respondents failed to consider the same and proceeded to open the technical bid of Respondent No. 6 alone, thereby effectively ousting the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that the respondent authorities have erected artificial barriers to exclude the petitioner, which is impermissible in law. The State cannot act in a manner that skews the tender process in favour of a particular bidder. It is submitted that the arbitrary disqualification has caused serious prejudice to public interest, as the petitioner’s financial bid is approximately ₹3 crores lower than that of the selected bidder. The impugned action has resulted in an avoidable loss to the public exchequer, contrary to the State’s obligation to ensure transparency and economic prudence. Learned counsel contends that malice in law and in fact is evident, as the petitioner has been excluded without any valid reason, indicating favoritism towards Respondent No. 6. It is further submitted that such arbitrary action is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India, as it denies equality, fair opportunity in trade, and lawful consideration in public contracts. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, Civil Appeal No.2025/2025, decided on 06.10.2025 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489, wherein it has been held that the State cannot act arbitrarily in granting or withholding largesse and must adhere to fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned action of disqualification and grant appropriate relief in the interest of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the entire tender process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and the applicable procurement procedure, leaving no scope for arbitrariness or deviation. It is contended that the petitioner was rightly disqualified by the duly constituted Pre-Qualification Committee upon objective evaluation of documents. The petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria, particularly with respect to bid capacity and proof of execution of works, as the documents furnished were either post bid-date or inadequate for verification. It is further submitted that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cure deficiencies, and his replies along with additional documents were duly considered in the Committee meetings dated 01.04.2026 and 08.04.2026. 7 However, the deficiencies persisted, and therefore, the decision of disqualification is reasoned and justified. 9. It is contended by learned Advocate General that the evaluation of technical qualifications lies within the domain of expert committees, and the Court should exercise restraint in substituting its own assessment in place of that of the competent authority. It is further submitted that the financial bid of only the technically qualified bidder was opened in accordance with the tender conditions, and the declaration of L-1 bidder is a natural consequence of such evaluation. 10. Learned Advocate General submits that the allegation of loss to public exchequer is misconceived, as price comparison arises only among technically qualified bidders. A disqualified bidder cannot claim consideration of its financial bid. It is contended that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was duly informed of the reasons for disqualification and was given an opportunity to respond. With regard to subsequent developments, it is submitted that the tender process had substantially concluded upon approval by the competent authority, and the issuance of the order dated 27.04.2026 was merely a procedural consequence of such approval. It is further submitted that any omission in placing subsequent facts before this Court was bona fide and unintentional, and not with any intent to overreach judicial proceedings. Learned Advocate General also 8 submits that the State authorities have acted fairly, transparently, and in public interest, and no case of arbitrariness, mala fide, or discrimination is made out. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 28.04.2026, Ms.Vidya Bharti, Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Raipur is present in person and has filed her personal affidavit which states as under:- “1. It is submitted that, a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 06.03.2026 for construction of canal lining, remodelling works, and installation of various Colaba of Matiamoti Dam. The estimated contract value was Rs. 2881.45 lakhs, and the stipulated period for completion of work was 24 months. The bid submission commenced on 13.03.2026 and the last date for submission was 23.03.2026. 2. It is submitted that, bidders including the petitioner submitted their bids. On 24.03.2026, the Pre-Qualification (PQ) documents submitted by three bidders were downloaded and scrutinized. 3. That, the Pre-Qualification Committee convened its meeting on 01.04.2026 and, upon evaluation, found that two out of three bidders (including the petitioner) did not 9 meet the qualification criteria. The reasons for disqualification were duly communicated to them on 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), granting them two days to submit clarification/documents. 4. It is submitted that, the petitioner submitted replies on 04.04.2026 and 07.04.2026 along with certain documents. The Committee reconvened on 08.04.2026 and found that: • The documents submitted were post bid submission date (23.01.2026); • The running bills did not sufficiently disclose payment details to verify execution of works; • Hence, the petitioner remained disqualified. The evaluation proceedings dated 01.04.2026 and 08.04.2026 are annexed as ANNEXURE A-1 (colly.), for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 5. That, on 08.04.2026, the financial bid of the sole qualified bidder was opened based on the evaluation reports. Copy annexed as ANNEXURE A-2 for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 6. It is submitted that, the bidder Shri Ram Shiromani Tiwari was declared L-1, and the tender file was forwarded to the Chief Engineer for further action. 7. That, the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi-Godawari Basin, forwarded the agenda note to the Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur for approval. Relevant documents are annexed as ANNEXURE A-3 (colly.) for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 8. It is submitted that, vide letter dated 22.04.2026, a 10 meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee was convened on 23.04.2026, wherein the rates of the L-1 bidder were accepted. Documents are annexed as ANNEXURE A-4 (colly.), for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 9. That, thereafter, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister (who also holds the portfolio of Water Resources Department) on 23.04.2026, and approval was granted on 26.04.2026. Consequently, the Secretary incharge (as the Secretary, WRD, has been appointed as Observer in West Bengal Election) issued order dated 27.04.2026 for issuance of Letter of Acceptance (LoA) in favour of the successful bidder. 10. It is submitted that, the tender approval process had substantially culminated upon approval accorded at the highest level on 23.04.2026, followed by formal ratification. 11. That, the instructions earlier furnished to the office of the Learned Advocate General were limited to proceedings up to 08.04.2026. Due to an inadvertent and bona fide omission, subsequent developments, including approval by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, could not be communicated before the Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2026. 12. It is submitted that, the said omission was purely unintentional and not actuated by any mala fide intent. The relevant note-sheets, being confidential, are being produced in a sealed cover for kind perusal. 13. That, pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2026, an offer letter was issued by the Executive Engineer, WRD Division Balod. Execution of agreement and issuance of work order are contingent upon submission of requisite 11 documents, including additional performance security and earnest money. 14. It is submitted that, as on date, no agreement or work order has been executed in favour of the successful bidder. 15. That, in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's order dated 28.04.2026, further proceedings have been kept in abeyance by the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (CG) vide letter dated 28.04.2026. Copy the same is annexed as ANNEXURE A-5. 16. It is submitted that, the deponent and concerned authorities have acted strictly in accordance with procedural requirements and without any intention to violate the orders or dignity of this Hon'ble Court. 17. That, the order dated 27.04.2026 was issued purely as a procedural consequence of prior approvals of the Hon'ble Chief Minister/Minister of WRD, and not with any intent to overreach judicial proceedings. 18. It is submitted that, the deponent holds the highest respect for this Hon'ble Court and submits that there was no deliberate or intentional act of disobedience. 19. That, the deponent acted in her official administrative capacity after completion of all technical and procedural formalities by the Hon'ble Chief Minister/Minister WRD, who accorded his approval on 26.04.2026. 20. It is submitted that, the deponent tenders unconditional and sincere apology for any inadvertent omission or act that may have appeared to be 12 inconsistent with the orders of this Hon'ble Court and assures utmost diligence in future.” 13. From perusal of the record and affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, it is evident that the tender process in question has been conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the NIT and the applicable procurement procedure. The record reflects that the petitioner’s bid was subjected to scrutiny by a duly constituted Pre-Qualification Committee, which evaluated the documents on an objective basis. The petitioner was found deficient in meeting the prescribed eligibility criteria, particularly in relation to bid capacity and proof of execution of works. The documents relied upon by the petitioner were either submitted beyond the bid date or were otherwise insufficient for proper verification. 14. It further emerges that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. The replies submitted by the petitioner, along with additional documents, were duly considered in the Committee meetings held on 01.04.2026 and 08.04.2026. Despite such consideration, the deficiencies were found to persist. The decision of disqualification, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, but rather appears to be based on due application of mind. 15. This Court is mindful of the settled principle that the evaluation of 13 technical bids lies within the domain of expert bodies, and judicial review in such matters is limited. In the absence of arbitrariness, mala fide, or procedural irregularity, this Court ought not to substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority. 16. The contention regarding alleged loss to the public exchequer is also found to be misconceived. Consideration of financial bids arises only amongst technically qualified bidders, and a disqualified bidder cannot claim a right to have its financial bid opened or compared. 17. As regards the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, the record demonstrates that the petitioner was duly informed of the grounds of disqualification and was granted an opportunity to respond. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused. 18. The subsequent developments pointed out do not, in any manner, vitiate the tender process. The issuance of the order dated 27.04.2026 appears to be a consequential step following approval by the competent authority. The omission in placing such facts earlier is satisfactorily explained and does not indicate any intent to mislead or overreach the proceedings. 19. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the actions of the respondent authorities are fair, transparent, and in consonance with the governing rules and public interest. No case of arbitrariness, mala fide, or discrimination is made out warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. 14 20. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the doctrine of level playing field and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not advance his case in the facts of the present matter, as the said principles operate within the framework of compliance with tender conditions. The petitioner having failed to meet the prescribed criteria cannot invoke such doctrines to seek interference. 21. The scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited. Unless the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or in violation of the terms of the tender, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re- evaluate the bids or substitute its own decision for that of the tendering authority. 22. The Apex Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 11005 OF 2024, decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the decisions rendered in various other celebrated judgments, observed as under:- “21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the 15 government/ its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner. 22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial intervention in Government Contracts. 23. In Sterling Computers Limited vs. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and Others1, this Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts held: - “18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process”. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was said that: (p. 144a) “The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.” By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly examine whether “decision-making process” was 1 (1993) 1 SCC 445 16 reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India2, this Court had laid down certain priniciples 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 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.” 25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others3, as under: - 2 (1994) 6 SCC 651 3 (2004) 3 SCC 553 17 “53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution.” 26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others4, 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 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 fairness in action.” 27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others5, 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 4 (2007) 14 SCC 517 5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574 18 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.” 28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsels for the Respondents relying upon the observations made in Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others6, that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. However, in the said judgment also it is observed that if the employer has exercised the inherent authority to deviate from the essential term, such deviation has to be made applicable to all the bidders and potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as under:- “47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but alsofrom the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached” as held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber 6 (2016) 8 SCC 622 19 (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216]. 48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even thatdecision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.” 23. Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of M/S. Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. GSPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd. (GPPC) & Ors. {SLP (C) No(S).30209-30210 of 2025}, decided on 25.03.2026 held that the final choice is of the owner, and it is for the owner to take the final decision with necessary flexibility and pragmatism. While exercising judicial review of contractual matters, constitutional courts do not exercise, should not exercise ex-ante jurisdiction to pre-empt executive actions. On this count, High Court has exceeded the first principle of judicial restraint in contractual matters. 24. Applying the well settled proposition of law to the facts of this case, we do not find any merit in this petition and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in this petition. As such, the writ 20 petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. 25. Presence of Ms.Vidya Bharti, Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Raipur is discharged. Sd/- Sd/- Sd Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu