1 2026:CGHC:21925-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2322 of 2026 1 - M/s Mahamaya Construction Through- Neelesh Chaturvedi (Proprietor/director) S/o Shri S.N. Chaturvedi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rawat Residency, Ambikapur, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja, (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Water Resource Department, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Basin, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Engineer (Tender Cell) Office Of The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur, C.G. 5 - Superintending Engineer Shyam Barnai Project Circle, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, (C.G.) 6 - The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - M/s Arya Construction Company Company Id- Cger05968, 01, Sewakunj Road, Near Girls College, District- Raigarh C.G. 496001 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.15 10:24:54 +0530 2 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, ог direction, quashing and setting aside the decision of the Respondent authorities to technically qualify Respondent No. 7 (M/s Arya Construction Company) in System Tender No. 183610, and the consequential opening of the Financial Bid (Envelope 'C') of Respondent No. 7 on 18.03.2026, as being illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. B. May this Hon'ble court be pleased to, Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to immediately disqualify Respondent No. 7 from System Tender No. 183610 for submitting false information, on account of its submission of false andfabricated Annexure-III (Work-in-Hand Bid document) documents and false Affidavit /Shapth Patra (Annexure-VI bid document), in conformity with the mandatory of the provisions disqualification Prequalification Document, maintaining parity with their own decision as taken in System Tender No. 180966, wherein, the technical bid of 3 the Respondent No.7 was disqualified for the use of Identical / same false and fabricated documents; C. May, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to, Issue a writ in the other writ/writs, mandamus or any direction/directions directing the Respondent Authorities to Disregard / cancel the financial bid opening dated 18.03.2026, all consequential proceedings thereto, including any Letter of Intent, Work Order, or Agreement, if issued or executed and to re-evaluate the financial bids strictly among the legally and technically responsive bidders excluding Respondent No. 7. D. May, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to, Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondent- Authorities to re-open and re-conduct the pre- qualification evaluation of System Tender No. 183610 afresh, in accordance with the tender conditions and in a transparent, consistent, and lawful manner; E. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondent-Authorities to forthwith act upon and decide the Petitioner's complaint dated 30.03.2026 in accordance with law, and to apply the mandatory disqualification clause consistently as applied in Tender No. 180966 to Respondent No. 7 in Tender No. 183610. F. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. G. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, an “A” Class registered contractor, participated in System Tender No. 183610 dated 09.01.2026 floated by the respondent authorities for the work of “Repair of Canal and Lining Work of Lower Dodaki 4 Diversion Scheme” valued at Rs. 984.51 Lakhs. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the action of the respondent authorities in qualifying the technical bid of Respondent No. 7 and subsequently opening its financial bid on 18.03.2026, despite the fact that Respondent No. 7 had earlier been disqualified in System Tender No. 180966 by the very same department under Clause 2.1.6(i) of the tender conditions for submitting false and inflated “Work-in-Hand” statements and affidavits. The petitioner submits that the very same documents, which were found false in the earlier tender proceedings and accepted as such by Respondent No. 7 without challenge, were again relied upon by Respondent No. 7 in the present tender. Ignoring its earlier findings and acting contrary to the principles of fairness, consistency and level playing field, the respondent authorities arbitrarily treated Respondent No. 7 as technically qualified and opened its financial bid, as a consequence of which Respondent No. 7 emerged as L-1 and the petitioner as L-2. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed objection before the authorities pointing out the illegality and inconsistency in the decision-making process; however, no action has been taken till date. Aggrieved by the arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide action of the respondents, which is alleged to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 299 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition. 5 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in qualifying Respondent No. 7 in System Tender No. 183610 is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 298 and 299 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the very same “Work-in- Hand” statements and sworn affidavits submitted by Respondent No. 7 in the present tender had earlier been scrutinized by the respondent department itself in System Tender No. 180966, wherein, after detailed examination and re-evaluation, Respondent No. 7 was formally disqualified under Clause 2.1.6(i) of the tender conditions on the ground that the documents were false, inflated and contrary to official departmental records. The said disqualification attained finality as Respondent No. 7 never challenged the same before any authority or court of law. Despite such binding administrative finding, the respondent authorities, without assigning any reason and in complete derogation of the principle of consistency, have now proceeded to qualify Respondent No. 7 in the present tender on the basis of the very same documents. It is contended that once the department itself had declared the documents to be false, the mandatory disqualification clauses contained in the tender conditions left no discretion with the authorities except to disqualify Respondent No. 7. The impugned decision-making process, therefore, is ex facie arbitrary, irrational and fails the test of fairness, transparency and reasonableness in State action. 6 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the action of the respondent authorities has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, who otherwise stood a legitimate chance of being declared L-1. It is argued that the participation and qualification of an ineligible bidder on the strength of false documents has vitiated the entire tender process and destroyed the level playing field guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents, despite being specifically informed by the petitioner regarding the earlier disqualification of Respondent No. 7, ignored the relevant and material facts and proceeded to open the financial bid of Respondent No. 7 on 18.03.2026, thereby conferring undue favour upon it. It is further submitted that even assuming Respondent No. 7 could otherwise satisfy the bid capacity criteria, submission of false information itself attracts automatic disqualification under the tender conditions and the same cannot be condoned selectively. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned action of the respondents is tainted by arbitrariness, mala fide, bias and colourable exercise of power, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities does not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality or mala fide warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the 7 technical bids submitted in System Tender No. 183610 were independently scrutinized and evaluated by the competent Tender Evaluation Committee strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT and the applicable tender rules. According to the learned State counsel, the evaluation conducted in Tender No. 183610 was separate and distinct from the earlier tender proceedings in System Tender No. 180966 and, therefore, the observations made in the earlier tender could not automatically operate as a bar against Respondent No. 7 in the present tender. It is further submitted that after examining the records and bid documents submitted in the present tender, the competent authority found Respondent No. 7 technically eligible and, accordingly, proceeded to open its financial bid. 7. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is extremely limited and this Hon’ble Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee unless the decision-making process is shown to be patently arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish any mala fide or favouritism on the part of the respondent authorities and the allegations regarding undue favour and bias are bald allegations unsupported by cogent material. Learned State counsel would further submit that mere participation in the tender process does 8 not confer any vested right upon the petitioner to claim award of contract merely because it subsequently stood as L-2 after opening of the financial bid. 8. It is thus submitted that the decision to declare Respondent No. 7 technically qualified was taken by the competent authority after due consideration of the documents available on record and in accordance with the tender conditions and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Learned State counsel submits that no enforceable legal right of the petitioner has been infringed and the present petition is premature inasmuch as no final work order has yet been issued in favour of any bidder. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 7 had earlier been disqualified by the respondent department itself in System Tender No. 180966 after detailed scrutiny of its “Work-in-Hand” statements and sworn affidavits, which were found to be false and contrary to the official departmental records. The record further reveals that the said disqualification was made by the competent Pre-Qualification Committee under Clause 2.1.6(i) of the tender conditions and the same was never challenged by Respondent No. 7, thereby attaining finality. Despite such categorical findings 9 on identical documents, the respondent authorities, in the present System Tender No. 183610, proceeded to declare Respondent No. 7 technically qualified and opened its financial bid on 18.03.2026 without assigning any reason for departing from the earlier decision. 11. While it is well settled that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited and the State authorities are entitled to evaluate bids in accordance with the terms of the tender, such discretion is neither absolute nor immune from judicial scrutiny and must be exercised in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner. In the present case, Respondent No. 7 had earlier been disqualified by the respondent department itself in System Tender No. 180966 after detailed scrutiny of the very same “Work-in-Hand” statements and sworn affidavits, which were found to be false and inconsistent with official departmental records. However, despite such categorical findings having attained finality, the respondent authorities, in the present tender bearing System Tender No. 183610, proceeded to declare Respondent No. 7 technically qualified on the basis of the identical documents without assigning any reason or disclosing any material justifying departure from the earlier decision. The petitioner’s specific contention that the tender conditions mandate disqualification in cases involving false or misleading information has also remained substantially unrebutted, thereby lending credence to the allegation that the impugned decision-making 10 process suffers from arbitrariness, inconsistency and discriminatory treatment. 12. The action of the respondent authorities in qualifying Respondent No. 7 in the present tender, despite its earlier disqualification on the basis of the very same documents in System Tender No. 180966, clearly reflects arbitrariness, inconsistency and non- application of mind. The decision-making process adopted by the respondents does not satisfy the requirement of fairness, transparency and reasonableness, which are essential facets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once the competent committee of the respondent department had already recorded a categorical finding that the “Work-in-Hand” statements and sworn affidavits submitted by Respondent No. 7 were false and contrary to official records, the respondent authorities could not have, without any cogent justification, treated the same documents as valid in the present tender proceedings. At the same time, this Court remains conscious of the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and does not deem it appropriate to substitute its own decision for that of the Tender Evaluation Committee. However, the apparent inconsistency and arbitrariness in the decision-making process, coupled with the failure of the respondents to uniformly apply the tender conditions, prima facie warrants judicial scrutiny and appropriate interference. 13. Accordingly, in order to balance the equities and to subserve the ends of justice, this Court directs the respondent No. 1 to pay a 11 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. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-SdSDSd/-Sd/- Sd S (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok