1 2026:CGHC:2688-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 198 of 2026 M/s Jai Maa Gajgouri Fly Ash Bricks Through Proprietor Ganeshram Aged About 47 Years S/o- Dubraj Jaiswal R/o- Village- Jashpur Post Office- Jashpur Kachar, P.S.- Kosir Tehsil- Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Geology And Mining Department Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, 1st And 2nd Floor, Block-4, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Geology And Mining Department Indravati Bhawan, 1st And 2nd Floor, Block-4, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - Ramanand Jatwar S/o Kirtan Jatwar R/o Village- Salhe, Post- Chind, P.S. Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.16 18:29:18 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 16/01/2026 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the arbitrary action of the tendering authority, as they have rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in the online portal is not duly notarized, whereas the affidavit is duly notarized by the Oath Commissioner, just to award the tender to the private respondent, such vague reasons has been given by the tendering authority and the petitioner has been declared as not eligible bidder. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 18/11/2025 issued by the Respondent/Collector Sarangarh- Bilaigarh declaring the private respondent was declared as Technically Eligible Bidder, even when the private respondent has violated the conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender by depositing the performance security amount from the account of third person, but still the private respondent has been selected as successful preferred bidder in the E- Auction. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to call the entire records. 3 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to set- aside/quash the note sheet dated 17/11/2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the District Level Committee. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to set- aside/quash order dated 18/11/2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Respondent No. 4. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 take decision on the complaint by the petitioner. 10.5 That any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the case in brief is that, the petitioner, the proprietor of M/s Jai Maa Gajgouri Fly Ash Bricks, participated in an E-Auction conducted in November 2025 for sand mine leases in the Sarangarh- Bilaigarh district under the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand Rules, 2025. Despite submitting a notarized affidavit, the petitioner’s technical bid for the Dahida sand mine was rejected by the District Level Committee on November 17, 2025, on the grounds that the affidavit uploaded to the online portal was not duly notarized, even though the same document was allegedly accepted for a different mine. The petitioner alleges that this disqualification was arbitrary and intended to favor a private respondent who was declared successful despite purportedly violating tender conditions by paying the performance security from a third-party account. Following the rejection, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Collector (Respondent No. 4) under the dispute resolution provisions of the 4 state notification but claims that no action was taken, leading to the filing of this writ petition to quash the impugned orders and seek a fair decision on the grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid for the Dahida/Sarangarh sand mine on the grounds of an "improperly notarized" affidavit is patently arbitrary. The petitioner submitted a validly notarized affidavit dated November 11, 2025, which was duly authenticated by the oath commissioner. Crucially, the same tendering authority accepted this exact same affidavit for the Jashpur sand mine, yet disqualified the petitioner for the Dahida mine based on the same document. This inconsistency demonstrates a lack of transparency and a "whimsical" exercise of power. The petitioner further submits that while they were disqualified for a minor technicality, the private respondent was declared "Technically Eligible" on November 18, 2025, despite a fundamental breach of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The private respondent deposited the performance security amount from the bank account of a third party, Shiv Tandon, which is a direct violation of the tender conditions. By overlooking this material irregularity to favor a specific bidder, the State authority has failed to act in a fair and transparent manner. He further stated that, under Clause 7(5) of the Notification dated September 12, 2025, the Collector is the competent authority to decide on disputes arising during the auction process, and such decisions are final and binding. The petitioner filed a formal complaint raising these grievances after acquiring information through the Right to Information Act. However, Respondent No. 4 (the Collector) has 5 failed to take any action or pass a reasoned order on the complaint, thereby necessitating the present writ petition. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216, the petitioner asserts that State action must be governed by the "heartbeat of fair play". The disqualification lacks a "discernible reason" and is against the well-settled principles of law. Consequently, the impugned note sheet dated November 17, 2025, and the subsequent order dated November 18, 2025, are illegal and liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that in an E-Auction process, the burden of proof regarding the successful upload of validly notarized documents lies solely with the bidder. While the petitioner claims the physical affidavit was notarized, the District Level Committee found that the document submitted specifically through the online portal for the Dahida/Sarangarh mine was not duly notarized. In the realm of digital tenders, technical compliance is mandatory, and the tendering authority is not required to look beyond the digital submission provided at the time of the bid opening. It is submitted that the Tendering Authority has the inherent right to set and strictly enforce eligibility criteria to ensure the integrity of the process. The decision to declare the petitioner as a "not eligible bidder" was based on a specific technical defect discovered during the opening of the technical bid on November 17, 2025. As per the principles highlighted in the petitioner's own cited case, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, judicial review is limited; the Court should not substitute its own 6 judgment for that of the experts in the committee unless there is evidence of gross illegality. Learned State counsel denies any allegation of favoritism toward the private respondent. The private respondent was found "Technically Eligible" on November 18, 2025, after satisfying all requisite conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The petitioner's claim regarding the source of the performance security is a matter of internal financial verification, and the selection of the successful bidder was conducted in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand Rules, 2025. Under Rule 7(5) of the notification dated September 12, 2025, it is established that in the course of an auction dispute, the decision of the Collector shall be final and binding. He would also submit that the administrative process is robust, and the petitioner's dissatisfaction with the outcome does not equate to "arbitrariness" or "whimsical" action by the State. He would further submit that the writ petition is devoid of merit. The petitioner was disqualified for a failure to comply with the technical requirements of the online portal. Therefore, the impugned Note Sheet (Annexure P-1) and Order (Annexure P-2) should be upheld to allow the public auction and mining activities to proceed without further delay. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the considering the challenge to the disqualification of the petitioner’s bid lacks merit under the established principles of judicial review in contractual matters. The petitioner was declared an 7 ineligible bidder based on a specific technical failure regarding the notarization of documents on the online portal. It is well-settled that the tendering authority is the best judge of its own requirements. As noted in the petitioner’s own pleadings, the authority found that the "affidavit submitted by the petitioner in the online portal is not duly notarized". In the digital auction framework, strict compliance with upload protocols is mandatory to maintain the integrity of the E-Auction process. While the petitioner relies on Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, that very precedent limits the court’s role. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment observed that:- "...these actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose". 8. In this case, a "discernible reason" the lack of proper notarization on the portal was provided. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-evaluate the technical findings of the District Level Committee. As per the Notification dated 12/09/2025, specifically Rule 7(5), in cases of disputes arising during the auction, "the decision of the Collector shall be final and binding". The petitioner's claim that the Collector has not taken action does not, by itself, render the underlying disqualification illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner’s contention that the rejection was done "just to favor the private respondent" is a bare allegation without concrete evidence of collusion. The mere fact that the private respondent used a third-party account for security deposits, even if true, does not automatically cure the petitioner's own technical 8 default. The impugned note sheet dated 17/11/2025 and the order dated 18/11/2025 were issued following a documented technical evaluation. Since the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of the technical bid, no right to the tender exists. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved