1 2026:CGHC:21926-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2332 of 2026 1 - Kavita Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Through President Asgari Begam W/o Late Liyakat Ali Khan Aged 53 Years Residence Of Ward No.9 Kalikapara /ramnagar Dongargarh District -Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Departmentog Health And Family Welfare,mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District -Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services Indrawati Bhawan Mantralaya,capital Complex Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Disrtict -Raipur C.G. 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer /civil Surgeon, District Hospital Balod District -Balod Chhattisgarh-491226 4 - Jeevandeep Samiti District Hospital Balod, Through Its Secretary / Authorized Officer Govt .District Hospital Dallirajhara Road, Near Govt College,balod - District -Balod C.G.491226 5 - Government E-Marketplace (Gem) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 2nd Floor Jeevan Tara Building Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001. 6 - Shikari Para Maa Gayatri Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, Shikari Para Balod District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.15 10:24:02 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. 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. 11/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for State/Respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “A. May, This Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned disqualification of the Petitioner's financial bid dated/effective 28.04.2026 as reflected on the GeM Portal as being Arbitrary, Unreasonable, Unspecified, Vexatious, Malafide, and Unconstitutional, being in complete contravention of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. B. May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to reconsider and restore the Petitioner's status as H1, Bidder and to forthwith proceed to award the contract / work order to the Petitioner in accordance with the GeM Bid Document Number: GEM/2026/B/7332406 dated 11-03-2026 (ANNEXURE P-1), and applicable 3 rules and regulations, the Petitioner's financial bid having already been publicly evaluated, declared as H1, and found to be the most competitive bid. C. May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to consistently revaluate and reconsider all the financial bid as per the terms and condition mentioned in the bid document Number: GEM/2026/B/7332406 dated 11-03- 2026. D. May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside all consequential actions taken by the Respondents in furtherance of the impugned disqualification, including any contract awarded or proposed to be awarded or any work order issued in favour of Respondent No. 6 E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. F. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Kavita Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, a duly registered Women Self Help Group engaged in providing catering and dietary services, participated in GeM Bid No. GEM/2026/8/7332406 floated by the respondent authorities on 11.03.2026 for providing healthcare kitchen and dietary services at District Hospital, Balod under the QCBS methodology. The petitioner was declared technically qualified after securing 85 out of 100 marks in the technical evaluation and thereafter, upon opening of the financial bids on 26.04.2026, emerged as the lowest bidder (H1) by quoting Rs.70,90,125/-. However, despite being declared technically qualified and 4 financially the most competitive bidder, the respondent authorities subsequently changed the status of the petitioner’s bid to “Disqualified” on the GeM Portal on the ground of “Abnormally Low Rate” and alleged “quality hindrance”, though no such disqualification condition or minimum floor price was prescribed in the bid document. It is the case of the petitioner that identical reasons were mechanically assigned for disqualifying the H2 and H3 bidders also, resulting in respondent No. 6, who had quoted Rs.97,91,125/-, becoming the successful bidder, thereby allegedly causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging arbitrariness, mala fide exercise of power, violation of transparency in the tender process and infringement of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, a duly registered Women Self Help Group, participated in GeM Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7332406 floated by the respondent authorities for providing healthcare kitchen and dietary services at District Hospital, Balod. It is submitted that the petitioner secured 85 marks out of 100 in the technical evaluation and was declared technically qualified by the competent authority itself. Thereafter, upon opening of the financial bids on 26.04.2026, the petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder (H1) by quoting Rs.70,90,125/-. However, despite completion of the entire two-stage evaluation process, the respondents abruptly changed 5 the petitioner’s status to “Disqualified” on the GeM Portal on the vague ground of “Abnormally Low Rate” and alleged “quality hindrance”. Learned counsel would submit that the bid document nowhere prescribed any minimum floor price or any condition authorizing rejection on the ground of abnormally low rates and, in fact, specifically recorded “Minimum Floor Price defined by Buyer: No”. It is contended that the respondents, after having declared the petitioner technically competent on all quality parameters, could not subsequently reject the financial bid on alleged quality concerns, as the same is wholly self-contradictory, arbitrary and dehors the tender conditions. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that identical reasons were mechanically assigned for disqualifying H1, H2 and H3 bidders despite substantial variation in their quoted rates, thereby clearly demonstrating that the ground of “abnormally low rate” was merely a device to eliminate all competing bidders and favour respondent No. 6, who had quoted the highest amount of Rs.97,91,125/-. It is argued that such action has resulted in an avoidable financial burden of approximately Rs.27,01,000/- upon the public exchequer and violates the principles of fairness, transparency and level playing field in public procurement. It is further submitted that the impugned action was taken without issuance of any notice or opportunity of hearing and is thus violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, as well as the doctrine of legitimate 6 expectation. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622, Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272 and Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 1031 to contend that the State authorities are strictly bound by the terms of the tender document and cannot introduce undisclosed conditions or act arbitrarily in contractual matters. 6. Learned State counsel would oppose the writ petition and submit that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is very limited and unless the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or actuated by bias, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the tender in question pertains to healthcare kitchen and dietary services for patients admitted in District Hospital, Balod and therefore the respondent authorities were duty-bound to ensure quality, sustainability and feasibility of the rates quoted by the bidders. Merely because the petitioner was declared technically qualified and initially emerged as H1 would not confer any indefeasible right upon it to claim award of the contract. The respondent authorities, being the procuring agency, are fully empowered to assess whether the quoted rates are workable and capable of ensuring uninterrupted and quality service throughout the contract period. 7 7. Learned State counsel would further submit that during scrutiny of the financial bids, the competent authority found the rates quoted by the petitioner and certain other bidders to be abnormally low and commercially unviable in comparison to the prevailing operational costs and earlier rates, thereby raising serious concerns regarding maintenance of quality dietary services in a public healthcare institution. It is submitted that the decision was taken bonafidely and in larger public interest to ensure that patient care and food quality are not compromised. The respondents deny any allegation of mala fide, arbitrariness or favouritism and would contend that the petitioner, being merely a participating bidder, cannot insist upon award of the contract as a matter of right. It is thus submitted that no case for interference is made out and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was declared H1 in the subject tender process after opening of the financial bids and was also found technically qualified by the competent authority by awarding 85 marks out of 100 in the technical evaluation. The record further reveals that the petitioner was declared technically compliant on all prescribed quality parameters including Food Safety & Hygiene Compliance, Kitchen Infrastructure & Equipment and Staff Availability, pursuant to which its financial bid was opened and evaluated. Despite this, the respondent 8 authorities subsequently proceeded to disqualify the petitioner’s financial bid on the ground of “Abnormally Low Rate” and alleged “quality hindrance”, though no such disqualification criterion or minimum floor price formed part of the bid document. The record further reflects that identical reasons were mechanically assigned for disqualifying H2 and H3 bidders as well, resulting in respondent No. 6, who had quoted the highest amount, being placed in the lead position for award of the contract. 10. While it is well settled that the State is not bound to accept the lowest tender and retains the discretion to reject any bid in public interest, such discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in a fair, transparent, and reasoned manner strictly in accordance with the terms of the tender document. In the present case, the rejection of the petitioner’s financial bid, despite it having been declared technically qualified with 85 marks and having emerged as H1, is based on a vague and non-prescribed ground of “Abnormally Low Rate” coupled with an alleged “quality hindrance,” without there being any clause in the bid document providing for such disqualification. The record further reveals that no objective criteria, comparative analysis, or material justification has been disclosed to demonstrate how the petitioner’s quoted rate was considered unworkable, particularly when the bid document itself did not prescribe any minimum floor price. Moreover, the mechanical application of the same reasoning to H2 and H3 bidders, despite substantial variation in their quoted 9 rates, prima facie indicates arbitrariness and lends support to the petitioner’s plea of non-transparent and discriminatory exercise of discretion in the award of the tender. 11. The abrupt disqualification of the petitioner’s financial bid, despite its status as H1 after being declared technically qualified with 85 marks out of 100 by the competent authority, prima facie reflects arbitrariness and non-application of mind. The decision-making process adopted by the respondents does not appear to satisfy the requirement of fairness, transparency, and reasonableness, which are essential facets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the ground of “Abnormally Low Rate” is not prescribed in the tender document and no objective criteria or material justification has been disclosed in support thereof. The further fact that identical reasoning has been mechanically applied to other technically qualified bidders, despite variation in their quoted rates, strengthens the apprehension of an arbitrary exercise of power. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and does not deem it appropriate to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the authorities or to compel acceptance of any particular bid. However, the manner in which the petitioner’s bid has been rendered ineligible after completion of the entire evaluation process, without adherence to the tender conditions, warrants appropriate judicial relief. 12. Accordingly, in order to balance the equities and to subserve the 10 ends of justice, this Court directs the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- SSd/-SD Sd S Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok