1 2026:CGHC:4894-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 142 of 2026 1 - Shree Hari Infraprojects Pvt Ltd/ Ratna Khanij Udyog A Joint Ventrue Constituted Under Joint Venture Agreement Executed Between The Parties, Through Its Lead Partner, M/s Shree Hari Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 Through Its Authorized Signatory Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Ram Avatar Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 26, Shree Hari Mansion, Gopalbari, Hathhroi Block, Near Rajasthan Tourism Building, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302001. 2 - M/s Shree Hari Infrasprojects Pvt. Ltd., Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 Through Its Director Pankaj Upadhyay, S/o. Aged About 47 Years, S/o Late Mr. Babulal Upadhyay, Aged About 47 Years Having Its Registered Office At 26, Shree Hari Mansion, Gopalbari, Hathroi Block, Near Rajasthan Tourism Building, Jaipur, District Jaipur Rajasthan. 302001 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-D, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Municipal Council Lormi, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, District Mungeli C.G. 3 - Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Lormi, District Mungeli C.G. ---Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.30 19:05:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief(s):- "11 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions quashing/setting aside the order/ intimation dated 15.12.2025 bearing No. 917/ NPP/2025-2026 passed by the Chief Municipal Officer Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Annex.P/1). 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions for reconsideration of the technical evaluation of the Petitioner No.1 Joint Venture namely Shree Hari Infraprojects Pvt Ltd/ Ratna Khanij Udyog in Tender No. 175321 (1st Call) issued by Chief Municipal Officer Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh and the petitioner may kindly be declared as technically qualified for and eligible for Financial Evaluation. 3 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions for opening of Financial Evaluation/bid of the Petitioner No1 in Tender No. 175321 (1st Call). 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioners, M/s Shree Hari Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ratna Khanij Udyog, constitute a Joint Venture with Shree Hari Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. as the Lead Partner. The Joint Venture participated in the tender process for the project titled “Combined Raw Water Supply Scheme for Municipal Council Lormi, Mungeli & Takhatpur based on Khudiya Dam (Package-I) and Lormi 24×7 DIT Water Supply Scheme (Package-II)” issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, through Notice Inviting Tender No. 175321 dated 11.09.2025. The Petitioners duly submitted their technical bid in the name of the Lead Partner, as authorized under the Joint Venture Agreement, and complied with all requirements stipulated in the tender. 4. On 15.12.2025, the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Lormi, issued a communication disqualifying the Petitioners on the ground that the bid documents were uploaded using the Digital Signature Certificate of the non-lead partner, Ratna Khanij Udyog, instead of 4 the Lead Partner. The Petitioners contend that the tender conditions required submission in the name of the Lead Partner but did not mandate exclusive submission by the Lead Partner alone. Consequently, the disqualification was arbitrary, hyper-technical, and inconsistent with the tender conditions, resulting in undue prejudice to the Petitioners while favoring other participants. 5. Despite submitting a detailed representation requesting reconsideration of their technical qualification, the Petitioners’ grievance was ignored, and the authorities proceeded towards opening the financial bids. The Petitioners assert that the disqualification violated principles of fairness, transparency, and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, and was made without any cogent reasons. The Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the disqualification order, reconsideration of their technical bid, and permission for participation in the financial evaluation. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully submits that, in view of the Respondent authorities having recalled Tender No. 175321, the Petitioners no longer press the instant Writ Petition and are willing to seek its dismissal as withdrawn. The Petitioners, therefore, humbly request that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the Petition to be dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the recalled tender process, and with liberty to approach the appropriate authority for adjudication in accordance with law, if necessary. 5 7. Learned State Counsel respectfully submits that since the learned counsel for the Petitioners has sought permission to withdraw the present Writ Petition in view of the recall of the tender, the State has no objection to the same. The Respondent authorities have acted in accordance with the provisions of the tender process and there is no admission of any error or irregularity on their part. Accordingly, the Petition may be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Respondents in any other matter. 8. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned State Counsel. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that in view of the recall of the tender by the Respondent authorities, they seek permission to withdraw the present Writ Petition. Learned State Counsel has no objection to the same. Considering the fact that the relief originally sought has become infructuous and that there is no dispute or grievance pending for adjudication, the Court is inclined to allow the withdrawal of the petition. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn, as sought by the Petitioners’ counsel. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved