1 2026:CGHC:14000-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 956 of 2026 M/s B.R. Singh Bhadouriya Through- Its Partner Dilip Kumar Bhadouriya S/o Shrikumar Singh Bhadouriya Aged About 45,years R/o Mother Teresaa Ward No Near Durga Temple Ganesh Mandir Ghera Jagdalpur District- Bastar Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur District- Bastar Chhattisgarh Through Its Commissioner Office/address Shantinagar Ward Number 25 Bus Stand Road Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Shyam Kumar Singh S/o Late Suryapal Singh Aged About 78 Years Gupta Chouk Brijrajnagal Gali Near Mukbadhir Ashram Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.27 20:08:03 +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 24/03/2026 1. Heard Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appears for the respondent No.1/State, and Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel appears for respondent No.2–Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–M/s B.R. Singh Bhadouriya, a partnership firm through its partner Dilip Kumar Bhadouriya, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of (i) the action dated 11.02.2026 whereby the technical bid of the petitioner came to be rejected on the alleged ground of deficiencies in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 of the pre-qualification document without issuance of any prior notice, opportunity of clarification or a reasoned order, (ii) the consequential bid-opening process dated 11.02.2026 and award of contract in favour of respondent No.3, and (iii) the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected in a mechanical and non-speaking manner. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that the entire tender process initiated by respondent No.2 for the work of widening of existing bituminous road within Jagdalpur Municipal limits stands vitiated on account of 3 procedural impropriety, violation of principles of natural justice, non- compliance of binding departmental circulars and arbitrariness in decision-making, resulting in denial of a fair and level playing field to the petitioner despite it being otherwise eligible and financially competitive. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs: “In view of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: 1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the action dated 11.02.2026 whereby the Petitioner’s Technical Bid was rejected on alleged deficiencies in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 without prior notice, opportunity of clarification, and without issuance of a contemporaneous speaking order; 2. Quash and set aside the decision taken on 11.02.2026 awarding the subject tender in favour of Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the impugned bid-opening process; 3. Quash and set aside the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur, rejecting the Petitioner’s representation dated 17.02.2026; 4. Declare that the action of the 4 Respondents in rejecting the Petitioner’s bid without adherence to binding procedural safeguards and without affording opportunity of clarification is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; 5. Direct the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner’s Technical Bid in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of clarification and to proceed with the tender process strictly in compliance with principles of fairness and transparency; 6. Pending final disposal of the present writ petition, restrain the Respondents from issuing any work order or creating any third-party rights pursuant to the impugned award decision dated 11.02.2026; 7. Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner, M/s B.R. Singh Bhadouriya, is a duly constituted partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, carrying on business as a civil contractor and having its principal place of business at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). The present writ petition has been instituted through its partner, Dilip Kumar Bhadouriya, who is competent and authorized to represent the firm in all legal proceedings and is well acquainted with the facts of the case. The petitioner firm is a registered “B” Class contractor under the Unified 5 Registration System (E-Registration) of the State of Chhattisgarh and is eligible to undertake works of the nature involved in the present tender. ******* Respondent No.2–Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 06.01.2026 inviting online percentage rate tenders for the work of widening of an existing bituminous road within Jagdalpur Municipal limits, having a Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) of Rs. 931.36 lakhs. As per the tender schedule, bids were to be submitted between 07.01.2026 and 29.01.2026 and the technical bids were scheduled to be opened on 03.02.2026. The petitioner submitted its bid within the stipulated time along with all requisite documents. ******* However, contrary to the declared schedule, the technical bids were not opened on 03.02.2026 and no intimation regarding postponement or rescheduling was communicated to the petitioner. Instead, the respondent authorities proceeded to open another tender of similar nature on 09.02.2026, in which the petitioner had also participated and was declared successful by quoting 13.65% below the schedule of rates, thereby disclosing its competitive pricing to the respondents. ******* Subsequently, on 11.02.2026, the respondents opened the bids in the present tender without any prior notice or intimation to the petitioner and rejected the petitioner’s technical bid on the alleged ground of deficiencies in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 of the pre-qualification document. The petitioner was not issued any show cause notice nor afforded any opportunity to clarify the alleged deficiencies. The rejection was communicated only through a system-generated electronic 6 communication. ******* The alleged deficiencies pertained to non-submission of certain particulars in Annexure-11 relating to technical personnel and Annexure- 12 relating to contact details. According to the petitioner, the omission was inadvertent and of a minor and curable nature, especially in view of the stipulation contained in Annexure-11 itself which described the list of technical personnel as tentative and subject to modification by the Commissioner. The petitioner contends that such deficiencies did not affect its eligibility, experience or technical competence and ought not to have resulted in outright rejection of its bid. ******* Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 17.02.2026 before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, inter alia relying upon the applicable departmental circular which mandates that in case of any deficiency in technical documents, the bidder must be informed on the date of opening of technical bids and afforded an opportunity to clarify the same before opening of financial bids. Despite the said representation, the Commissioner rejected the same by order dated 20.02.2026 without addressing the core issues raised by the petitioner and without assigning cogent reasons. ******* In the meantime, the contract in question was awarded to respondent No.3 at a rate of 10% below the schedule of rates. The petitioner asserts that it was otherwise eligible and had demonstrated a more competitive rate in a similar tender process. The sequence of events, including non-adherence to the scheduled date of opening, prior 7 disclosure of the petitioner’s competitive bid in another tender, rejection on technical grounds without opportunity of clarification, and subsequent award at a higher rate, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of lack of transparency and fairness in the tender process. ******* The petitioner contends that the entire decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, violation of principles of natural justice, non- compliance of binding procedural safeguards and denial of a level playing field in public procurement, thereby causing prejudice not only to the petitioner but also to public interest. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and violative of the settled principles governing public procurement. It is contended that the petitioner is an eligible and experienced contractor and had duly participated in the tender process pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.01.2026. However, in complete departure from the declared schedule, the respondents did not open the technical bid on the stipulated date i.e. 03.02.2026 and no reason or intimation was furnished to the petitioner, thereby rendering the process opaque and arbitrary at the very threshold. It is further submitted that the respondents, instead of opening the present tender, proceeded to open another similar tender on 09.02.2026 wherein the petitioner participated and was declared successful by quoting 13.65% below, thereby disclosing its competitive financial bid. Immediately thereafter, the respondents opened the present tender on 11.02.2026 8 and rejected the petitioner’s technical bid on alleged deficiencies in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12. According to learned counsel, the sequence of events itself gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of lack of fairness and transparency in the decision-making process and reflects institutional arbitrariness. ******* Learned counsel would argue that the alleged deficiencies are wholly minor, technical and curable in nature and do not go to the root of eligibility. It is pointed out that Annexure-11 itself categorically stipulates that the list of technical personnel is tentative and can be modified by the Commissioner as per requirement. In such circumstances, non- submission of a particular certificate relating to technical personnel could not have been treated as a mandatory disqualification. Similarly, the omission in Annexure-12 is merely procedural and does not affect the competence or capacity of the petitioner. It is thus contended that the respondents have erroneously treated ancillary conditions as essential eligibility criteria, contrary to settled law. It is further submitted that even assuming without admitting that there were deficiencies, the same were curable and the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to clarify or rectify the defects. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on the binding departmental circular dated 24.11.2014, which mandates that if any bidder is found deficient in documents at the stage of technical evaluation, the bidder must be informed on the date of opening of technical bids and granted an opportunity to clarify the same before opening of the financial bids. The respondents have admittedly failed to follow this mandatory procedure, thereby vitiating the entire process. 9 ******* Learned counsel would further submit that the rejection of the petitioner’s bid without issuance of any show cause notice, without furnishing any deficiency memo and without passing a contemporaneous speaking order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The rejection was communicated merely through a system-generated electronic message, which does not disclose any reasons and does not reflect application of mind. It is submitted that any administrative decision having civil and commercial consequences must be supported by reasons and must satisfy the test of fairness, transparency and accountability. It is also contended that the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner rejecting the petitioner’s representation is mechanical and non-speaking. The said order merely reiterates the alleged deficiencies without considering the specific grounds raised by the petitioner, including the tentative nature of Annexure-11, the curable character of the omissions, and the applicability of the departmental circular. The rejection of the representation, therefore, does not cure the illegality in the original decision but rather compounds it. ******* Learned counsel would further argue that the petitioner has been denied a level playing field in the tender process. Public procurement by State instrumentalities must conform to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and must ensure fairness, transparency and equal opportunity to all bidders. By deviating from the prescribed procedure, denying opportunity of clarification and rejecting an otherwise eligible bidder on hyper-technical grounds, the respondents have acted in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. It is also submitted that the 10 impugned action is contrary to public interest and financial prudence. The petitioner had demonstrated a more competitive rate in a similar tender, whereas the contract in the present case has been awarded to respondent No.3 at a higher rate of 10% below. The exclusion of a competitive bidder on untenable grounds has resulted in financial loss to the public exchequer and defeats the very object of competitive tendering. ******* On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire tender process stands vitiated by arbitrariness, procedural impropriety, violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance of binding procedural safeguards, and therefore, the impugned actions are liable to be quashed and appropriate directions deserve to be issued for reconsideration of the petitioner’s bid in accordance with law. 6. Learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would, at the outset, submit that the present writ petition is misconceived both on facts and in law and is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a purely contractual matter arising out of a tender process, wherein the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. It is submitted that unless the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions, no interference is warranted. It is further submitted that the role of respondent No.1–State is only supervisory in nature and the tender process in question has been conducted by respondent No.2–Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, which is an 11 independent statutory body competent to take decisions in matters of public procurement. The State has neither participated in the evaluation of bids nor in the decision to reject the petitioner’s technical bid, and therefore no specific allegation or cause of action is made out against respondent No.1. ******* Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner’s technical bid was found deficient during evaluation as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the tender conditions, particularly with respect to Annexure-11 and Annexure-12. It is contended that submission of complete and proper documentation is an essential requirement in any tender process, and it is the responsibility of each bidder to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the tender. Non- compliance with such conditions renders the bid liable to rejection at the threshold. It is further argued that the conditions of the tender are binding on all participants and must be applied uniformly. The petitioner cannot seek relaxation of the conditions after having participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the requirements. Any deviation or leniency shown to one bidder would amount to discrimination against other bidders and would itself be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ******* Learned counsel would also submit that the contention of the petitioner regarding curable defects is misconceived. The requirement of furnishing complete details in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 forms part of the technical evaluation criteria, and failure to comply with the same cannot be treated as a mere irregularity. The tendering authority is the best judge to determine whether a condition is essential or ancillary, and 12 such determination ought not to be interfered with lightly by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is not tenable in the present case. In tender matters, the process is governed by the terms of the tender document and the applicable procedure. There is no requirement of issuance of a show cause notice or grant of personal hearing before rejection of a bid at the technical stage, unless specifically provided. The petitioner, having failed to meet the prescribed requirements, cannot claim a right to be heard at that stage. ******* Learned State counsel would also contend that the petitioner’s reliance on the departmental circular is misplaced and the same does not override the express conditions of the tender. In any event, the applicability and interpretation of such procedural instructions fall within the domain of the tendering authority and do not confer an enforceable right upon the petitioner in the facts of the present case. It is further argued that no mala fides have been alleged against any individual officer, and the mere sequence of events as narrated by the petitioner is insufficient to establish arbitrariness or bias in the absence of cogent material. The tender process has been conducted in accordance with established procedure and the contract has been awarded to respondent No.3 after due evaluation. ******* Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has not acquired any vested right merely by participating in the tender process, and rejection of its bid does not entitle it to seek interference under Article 226. The writ petition, being devoid of merit and involving disputed questions of fact in a contractual domain, deserves to be dismissed. 13 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document and within the domain of administrative discretion vested in the tendering authority. The petitioner, having participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the eligibility conditions, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the same after being found technically non-responsive. It is submitted that the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.01.2026 clearly stipulated the requirements to be fulfilled by the bidders at the stage of technical evaluation, including submission of complete and requisite information under Annexure-11 and Annexure- 12. The petitioner admittedly failed to furnish the required details in the prescribed format, thereby rendering its bid incomplete and non- compliant. In a competitive tender process, strict adherence to the tender conditions is essential to ensure fairness, uniformity and transparency, and any deviation would compromise the integrity of the process. ******* Learned counsel would further submit that the requirement under Annexure-11 relating to technical personnel cannot be treated as merely optional or insignificant. The availability of qualified technical personnel is directly linked to the execution capability of the contractor and is therefore a material condition for evaluation. The clause indicating that the list is “tentative” does not dilute the obligation of the bidder to furnish complete particulars at the time of submission of the bid. The petitioner’s omission to provide the requisite certificate of the Mechanical Engineer 14 is thus a substantive deficiency and not a curable irregularity. ******* Similarly, the requirement under Annexure-12 regarding furnishing of designated contact details is also a part of the prescribed format and ensures administrative coordination during the execution of work. Non-submission of such details reflects non-compliance with the tender conditions. The tendering authority is entitled to insist upon strict compliance with all prescribed formats and documents, and the petitioner cannot seek relaxation on the ground of inadvertence. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner regarding violation of principles of natural justice is misconceived. In matters relating to evaluation of bids, the process is governed by the tender conditions and the e-procurement system. There is no requirement under the tender document to issue a show cause notice or provide an opportunity of hearing before declaring a bid technically non-responsive. The evaluation is conducted on the basis of documents submitted by the bidder, and any deficiency therein leads to rejection as per the terms of the tender. ******* Learned counsel would also submit that the departmental circular relied upon by the petitioner is only directory in nature and cannot override the specific terms of the tender document. In any case, the applicability of such circular depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and the same cannot be invoked to dilute mandatory requirements or to compel the authority to permit post-bid corrections, which would be impermissible in law. With regard to the allegation concerning non-opening of the bid on the scheduled date, it is submitted that the tendering authority is competent to reschedule or defer the 15 opening of bids due to administrative exigencies or technical reasons. Such rescheduling does not vitiate the process, particularly when the same applies uniformly to all bidders and no prejudice is caused. ******* Learned counsel would further contend that the allegation of arbitrariness based on the sequence of events is wholly unfounded and speculative. The petitioner has failed to place any material on record to substantiate any bias, favouritism or mala fide intention on the part of the respondents. The mere fact that the petitioner participated in another tender process does not render the present process illegal or suspect. It is also submitted that the financial competitiveness of the petitioner in another tender process is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the present tender. Each tender is an independent process and is required to be evaluated strictly in accordance with its own terms and conditions. The petitioner, having failed to qualify at the technical stage, cannot claim consideration at the financial stage or seek comparison of rates. ******* Lastly, learned counsel would submit that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. The respondent No.2 has acted within the bounds of law, followed the prescribed procedure and taken a bona fide decision in rejecting the petitioner’s bid. No case of arbitrariness, illegality or procedural impropriety is made out warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. ******* On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 16 documents annexed with the present writ petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the core issue which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid and the consequent award of contract suffer from arbitrariness, procedural impropriety and violation of principles of natural justice so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. From the admitted facts, it is evident that though the technical bids were scheduled to be opened on 03.02.2026, the same were not opened on the said date and no prior intimation or reason for such deferment was communicated to the petitioner. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner’s technical bid came to be rejected on 11.02.2026 on the alleged deficiencies in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 without issuance of any notice, without affording any opportunity of clarification and without passing a contemporaneous reasoned order. The rejection was merely communicated through a system-generated electronic message. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that such action does not satisfy the requirement of fairness and transparency expected in public procurement processes. 11. This Court also takes note of the fact that the deficiencies attributed to the petitioner pertain to non-submission of certain particulars in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12. Annexure-11 itself indicates that the list of technical personnel is tentative and subject to modification by the competent authority. In such circumstances, treating the omission as a 17 rigid disqualification without affording any opportunity to clarify appears to be disproportionate. Even otherwise, the alleged deficiencies were of a nature which could have been clarified without compromising the integrity of the tender process. 12. Further, the petitioner has placed reliance on the applicable departmental circular mandating that in case of deficiency in technical documents, the bidder ought to be informed at the stage of technical evaluation and granted an opportunity to clarify the same before opening of financial bids. The respondents have not demonstrated due compliance of such procedural safeguard. The denial of such opportunity, coupled with absence of a speaking order, in the opinion of this Court, vitiates the decision-making process. 13. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and the fact that the contract in question has already been awarded. In the absence of any specific allegation of mala fides against any individual officer and keeping in view the stage of the contract, this Court is not inclined to unsettle the entire tender process. However, the manner in which the petitioner has been excluded from consideration reflects procedural lapses and failure to adhere to standards of fairness, which cannot be countenanced. 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of contract in favour of respondent No.3 at this stage, it is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has suffered prejudice on account of arbitrary and procedurally improper action on the part of respondent No.2. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the 18 present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2– Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the petitioner as compensation for the procedural lapses and denial of fair opportunity, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved