1 2026:CGHC:5206-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 408 of 2026 M/s. Astha Construction (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) Having Their Office At 407, 4th Floor, Rao Trade Centre Block -D, Behind Walraj Petrol Pump, Satyam Chowk Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Sole Proprietor- Mr, Rajmani Mishra S/o Shri Purushottam Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o I-01, Gulmohar Park Behind Loco Pilot Training Centre Station Road, Gulmohar Park Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pin - 495001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India, through Secretary, / OSD, 256- A Raisina Road Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat New Delhi – 110001 2 - Railway Board, through its Member, Mechanical Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi Pin 110001 3 - General Manager, South East Central Railway GM Office Complex Railway Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pin 495001 4 - Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Frt), South East Central Railway DRM Office Complex Railway Colony, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin -495001 ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Rajkamal Singh through video conferencing and Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Adv. For Respondents/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General along with Ms. Shweta Rai, CGC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel, appearing through ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 video conferencing along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General along with Ms. Shweta Rai, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents/ UOI. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers :- “10.1 This honourable Court may, graciously be pleased to quash & set aside the order impugned/ Termination vide Notice No. Mech/ BSP/2025/ Brave- Van./ 238 Dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) to the effect it imposes punitive actions against the petitioner. 10.2 This honourable Court may, graciously be pleased to direct the respondents No.2 - 4 to return/ release the petitioner's Ernest Money Deposits/ Security Deposits & Performance Bank Guarantee. 10.3 This hon'ble court may please be kind enough in granting the cost, commercial interest and any other relief to the petitioner.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner, who is reputed though a small construction proprietorship firm. participated in the e-Tender No.99-Mech-BSP- Brave-Van, dated 04.09.2025; Closing Date 26.09.2025 12.00 Hrs, for "Provision of adjustable Guard Chairs and other essential amenities in Brake-Vans (Qty 30 Wagons)" however since the said tender document was erroneously prepared therefore, the required documents of the articles/ adjustable guard chair was not provided/published in the tender documents. Petitioner under the 3 said suppression of information by respondent no.4, on the basis of prevailing Guard Chair Designs quoted the rates and being lowest bidder was successful in the Tender, therefore, respondent No.4 issued a Letter of Acceptance dated 23.10.2025 in his favour and thereafter the petitioner after completing contractual formalities; placing the Performance Bank Guarantee, was in process of starting the work but he was provided a new diagram for the adjustable guard chair contrary to the prevailing design that would cost more than 10 to 12 times than the prevailing adjustable guard chairs. Therefore, the petitioner informed about this drastic discrepancy to the respondent authorities who were compelling the petitioner to execute the work with new design of adjustable guard chairs suffering huge financial losses that was in no condition acceptable to the petitioner in result, the respondent officials after giving him 7 days and thereafter 48-hour notices, rescinded the said work contract order impugned/ Termination Notice No. Mech/BSP/2025/ Brave-Van./ 238 Dated 23.12.2025 by which the not only the subject Contract Agreement/ Letter of Acceptance dated 23.10.2025 was rescinded by the respondent No.4, imposing debitable agency but the petitioner's firm has also been debarred foreboding forfeiture of the petitioner's security deposit & encashment of petitioner's performance Bank Guarantee. However, later the respondent South East Central Railway after realising their mistake have later cancelled the subject tender & floated a new tender No. 28-Mech-BSP-Brave- 4 Van changing the terms of the Tender completely. But the respondents have not withdrawn the proposed punitive action against the petitioner which is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, malafide & violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14, 19 of the Constitution of India and violative of the petitioner's other legal rights. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video-conferencing submits that the entire impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and vitiated by mala fides, inasmuch as the petitioner, a reputed proprietorship firm, participated in e-Tender No. 99-Mech-BSP-Brave-Van dated 04.09.2025 on the basis of tender documents which were admittedly defective and suppressed the requisite drawings/specifications of the adjustable guard chair. Relying upon the prevailing standard design, the petitioner quoted rates, was declared L-1 and was issued the Letter of Acceptance dated 23.10.2025, pursuant whereto he completed all contractual formalities including furnishing of Performance Bank Guarantee. However, at the stage of execution, the respondents unilaterally supplied an entirely new and materially different design, the cost of which was 10–12 times higher, making performance commercially impossible. Despite promptly bringing this fundamental discrepancy to the notice of the authorities, the petitioner was illegally coerced to execute the altered work and, upon his refusal, the contract was rescinded vide impugned 5 Termination Notice dated 23.12.2025, coupled with punitive measures of debarment, forfeiture of security deposit and encashment of the Bank Guarantee. He contends that the subsequent cancellation of the very same tender by South East Central Railway and issuance of a fresh tender with changed terms is a clear admission of the respondents’ own mistake, rendering the continuation of punitive action against the petitioner wholly unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to settled principles of fairness in contractual dealings by the State. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the UOI/respondents opposing the petition, submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the specific and efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the arbitration clause contained in the Contract Agreement/General Conditions of Contract, which governs all disputes arising out of or in connection with the tender and the Letter of Acceptance. It is contended that the dispute raised by the petitioner squarely pertains to contractual obligations, technical specifications, cost implications and termination of contract, all of which are matters requiring adjudication on disputed questions of fact and expert evidence, and therefore fall exclusively within the domain of arbitration. He further submits that mere allegation of arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 19 cannot be used as a device to bypass the agreed contractual mechanism of dispute 6 resolution, particularly when the petitioner has willingly participated in the tender process, accepted the Letter of Acceptance and executed the contract with open eyes. It is argued that the respondents acted strictly in accordance with the tender conditions and contractual terms while issuing notices and rescinding the contract for non-performance, and that the subsequent cancellation of the tender and issuance of a fresh tender does not ipso facto invalidate the earlier action taken under the contract. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the dispute raised by the petitioner essentially emanates from the terms of the tender, the scope of work, technical specifications of the adjustable guard chair, alleged escalation of cost and the consequent rescission of the contract. These issues are purely contractual in nature and involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is not in dispute that the Contract Agreement/Letter of Acceptance contains an arbitration clause providing an efficacious alternative remedy for resolution of such disputes. The petitioner, having voluntarily participated in the tender process and accepted the contractual terms, is bound by the agreed dispute resolution mechanism. Mere invocation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, in the facts of the present case, does not confer 7 jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petition, particularly when no exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice are made out. The subsequent cancellation of the tender and issuance of a fresh tender by the respondents may at best furnish a ground for the petitioner to agitate his grievances before the arbitral forum, but the same does not render the impugned termination and consequential actions amenable to writ scrutiny. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of arbitration in accordance with the terms of the contract and law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra