1 2026:CGHC:22833-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2271 of 2026 1 - M/s Vineet Singh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Vineet Singh, S/o Sudhish Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Registered Office At Near Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Om Nagar, Jarhabhata Bilaspur (C.G.)- 495001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Water Resources Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Upper Secretary Chhattisgarh Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Gariaband, District- Gariaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khushboo Dua, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur,Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 14/05/2026 Per Ramesh Sinha, C. J. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the Tender Cancellation Notice dated 10.04.2026 issued by Respondent No.4 in respect of Tender No.16/SAC/2025-26/Gariaband (2nd Call), whereby the subject tender came to be cancelled on the purported ground that the bid quoted by the petitioner was “higher than the prevailing trend”. Challenge has also been made to the communication dated 27.03.2026 issued pursuant to the recommendation of the Government Level Tender Evaluation Committee recommending cancellation of the subject tender. 2. Being aggrieved as stated hereinabove, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: 10.1. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case pertaining to the cancellation of the subject matter ie. NIT No. :16/SAC/2025-26, 3 Gariaband dated 20.01.2026. 10.2. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 1-0.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) and the communication dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure P/2). 10.3. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant an opportunity of negotiations to the petitioners to arrive at a bid amount favorable to both the parties. 10.4. The Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to order payment of costs to the petitioner. 10.5. The Hohn’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favor of the petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner Company, namely M/s Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited, is a duly registered and reputed “A” Class contractor engaged in execution of civil construction and infrastructure projects and possesses the requisite technical expertise, financial capability and statutory qualifications required for execution of government contracts of substantial magnitude. 4. On 10.09.2025, the respondent authorities issued Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.07/SAC/2025-26 inviting bids for execution of construction work pertaining to the Piperchhedi Tank Scheme situated in Block Chhura, District Gariaband. The scope of work included 4 construction of balance earth work, head work and nalla closure from RD 870 meter to 1140 meter together with construction of cut-off, rock toe, filter and pitching work, repair of sluice and construction of waste weir and chute fall in spill channel. The estimated value of the subject work was approximately Rs.2139.68 Lakhs. Pursuant to the aforesaid Notice Inviting Tender, the Petitioner participated in the tender process after fulfilling all requisite technical and financial eligibility conditions prescribed under the tender document. Upon evaluation of the technical bids, the Petitioner emerged as the sole technically qualified bidder. 5. However, instead of proceeding further in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document, the respondent authorities arbitrarily cancelled the tender vide notice dated 15.01.2026 merely on the ground that only one bidder remained in the process. Significantly, no condition existed in the tender document mandating automatic cancellation of the tender merely because a single bidder remained qualified. 6. Thereafter, without there being any substantial alteration in the nature or scope of work, the respondents issued a fresh tender being Tender No.16/SAC/2025-26/Gariaband dated 20.01.2026 (2nd Call) for the very same work. The Petitioner once again participated in the tender process and duly submitted its bid after complying with all prescribed conditions. 7. During the second round of tender process also, the Petitioner emerged as the sole technically qualified bidder. As per the tender conditions and prevailing departmental practice, the respondents were 5 fully empowered to undertake negotiation in cases involving a single bidder or where the quoted rates were considered to be on the higher side. Despite availability of such provision and despite the Petitioner being fully eligible and willing to execute the work, the respondents deliberately failed to undertake any negotiation process. Instead of objectively considering the Petitioner’s bid or entering into negotiations in the interest of completion of the public project, the respondents proceeded in a wholly arbitrary and predetermined manner towards cancellation of the tender process. 8. Being aggrieved by such arbitrary conduct, the Petitioner sought information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act regarding the decision-making process adopted by the respondents and the details of similarly situated tenders. Upon receipt of information under the RTI Act, startling facts came to light demonstrating manifest arbitrariness and hostile discrimination on the part of the respondent authorities. The information supplied by the respondents themselves disclosed that in several similarly situated tenders, bids substantially higher than the estimated tender value had been approved, including bids exceeding 67.42% and even more than 100% above the estimated tender amount. 9. However, in complete contradiction thereto, the Petitioner’s bid, being merely around 18% above the estimated value, came to be rejected on the vague and untenable ground that the same was allegedly “higher than the prevailing trend”. 6 10. The impugned reason assigned by the respondents is ex facie arbitrary, non-speaking and unsupported by any objective material inasmuch as neither the impugned communication nor any subsequent document discloses what constituted the alleged “prevailing trend”, how the same was determined or on what rational basis the Petitioner’s bid was found unacceptable. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 02.04.2026 before the competent authorities requesting reconsideration of the bid and specifically expressing willingness to renegotiate the quoted amount in accordance with the tender conditions and prevailing departmental practice. However, the said representation was never objectively considered and the respondents proceeded mechanically towards cancellation of the tender in a predetermined manner. 11. Ultimately, Respondent No.4 issued the impugned Tender Cancellation Notice dated 10.04.2026 cancelling the subject tender on the purported ground that the Petitioner’s bid was higher than the prevailing trend. The impugned action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable inasmuch as the respondents have applied different standards in identical situations and have singled out the Petitioner for hostile treatment despite approving substantially higher bids in several other tenders. 12. The respondents, being instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are constitutionally obligated to act fairly, transparently and non-arbitrarily in all contractual matters. However, the impugned action suffers from manifest 7 arbitrariness, non-application of mind, colourable exercise of power and violation of the settled principles governing fairness in public procurement. The arbitrary cancellation of the tender despite availability of a qualified and willing contractor has not only caused grave financial prejudice and irreparable injury to the Petitioner but has also unnecessarily stalled execution of an important public infrastructure project, thereby adversely affecting larger public interest. Hence, the present writ petition. 13. Contention of the counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Tender Cancellation Notice dated 10.04.2026, along with the decision dated 27.03.2026 of the Government Level Tender Evaluation Committee, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a duly qualified and experienced contractor engaged in execution of civil construction and engineering works and had participated in the tender process initiated by the Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, for execution of works under the Piperchhedi Tank Scheme in District Gariaband. The Petitioner fulfilled all eligibility conditions prescribed under the Notice Inviting Tender and submitted its bid strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document along with the requisite Earnest Money Deposit. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the first round of tender process, the Petitioner was declared L-1 bidder; 8 however, the tender came to be cancelled on 15.01.2026 on the ground that there was only a single bidder, despite there being no such stipulation in the tender conditions warranting automatic cancellation of the tender on such ground. Thereafter, a fresh tender (Second Call) dated 20.01.2026 was issued for the very same work, wherein again the Petitioner emerged as the sole qualified bidder. 15. It is contended that the tender conditions themselves contemplated negotiation in circumstances where a single valid bid is received; however, contrary to the prescribed procedure and established practice, the respondent authorities neither initiated any negotiation with the Petitioner nor afforded any opportunity to the Petitioner to rationalize or revise the bid amount. Instead, the authorities proceeded in a predetermined and mechanical manner to reject the Petitioner’s bid and cancel the tender process altogether. 16. She submits that the sole ground assigned for rejection of the Petitioner’s bid, namely that the quoted amount was allegedly “higher than the prevailing trend”, is vague, arbitrary and wholly devoid of any rational basis. It is argued that the said ground is merely a pretext adopted to oust the Petitioner from the tender process, particularly when similarly situated contractors had been granted approval even where the bid values were substantially higher than the estimated tender value. In support of the aforesaid contention, she submits that the information obtained by the Petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act clearly reveals that in several comparable tenders, 9 bids exceeding 67.42% and even up to 100% above the tender value were accepted and approved by the respondent authorities themselves. However, in the present case, the Petitioner’s bid, being merely 18% above the tender value, has been rejected on wholly untenable and discriminatory considerations. Such action, it is submitted, clearly demonstrates hostile discrimination, unequal treatment and complete arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had also submitted a detailed representation dated 02.04.2026 before the competent authorities expressing willingness to renegotiate and reduce the quoted bid amount in the larger public interest. However, the said representation was neither considered nor decided by the respondents, and the impugned cancellation notice came to be issued in a routine and mechanical manner without any independent application of mind. 18. It has been contended that the impugned action defeats the very object of competitive bidding and public procurement, which are founded upon fairness, transparency and maximization of public interest. By rejecting a valid and responsive bid without justifiable reasons and without exhausting the process of negotiation contemplated under the tender conditions, the respondent authorities have acted contrary to the settled principles governing public contracts and tender jurisprudence. 19. It is further argued that the decision-making process adopted by 10 the respondents is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides in law, non- application of mind and deviation from their own established practices. The impugned action not only lacks transparency and fairness but also results in unnecessary delay in execution of the public project and consequential financial prejudice to the public exchequer. 20. She therefore submits that the impugned Tender Cancellation Notice dated 10.04.2026 and the decision dated 27.03.2026 are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the terms and conditions governing the tender process. It is thus prayed that this Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned action of the respondents and issue appropriate directions for reconsideration of the Petitioner’s bid in accordance with law. 21. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, while opposing the writ petition, submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed in limine, as the petitioner seeks interference by this Hon’ble Court in a purely contractual and commercial matter arising out of a tender process, wherein the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. It is submitted that the petitioner has attempted to present a one-sided and self-serving narrative without disclosing the complete factual and administrative background leading to the impugned decision. The respondent authorities, therefore, have placed the true and correct facts before this Court for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the present case. 11 22. He submits that the tender in question, namely Tender/NIT No. 16/SAC/2025-26 dated 20.01.2026 (Second Call), was issued for execution of the work relating to construction and repair of Piperchhedi Tank Scheme in District Gariaband, having an estimated project cost of approximately Rs. 2139.68 Lakhs. Upon opening and evaluation of the financial bids, the petitioner was declared as the L-1 bidder; however, the rates quoted by the petitioner were found to be approximately 18% above the departmental estimated cost/Schedule of Rates (SOR). 23. It is contended that the competent authority, after undertaking a detailed evaluation of the financial implications, prevailing market conditions, comparative approved rates of similar works, fiscal discipline and overall reasonableness of the quoted amount, arrived at a bona fide administrative decision that acceptance of the petitioner’s bid would not be financially prudent and would adversely affect public interest and proper utilization of public funds. 24. He further submits that the State Government, being the custodian of public revenue, is under a constitutional and legal obligation to ensure transparency, competitiveness, fiscal propriety and prudent expenditure in all public procurement processes. The impugned decision has thus been taken strictly in larger public interest and in consonance with the applicable procurement policy, Work Department Manual and the terms and conditions governing the tender process. 25. It is argued that merely because the petitioner was declared as the L-1 bidder, no indefeasible, vested or enforceable right accrued in 12 its favour for award of the contract. Acceptance of a tender is always subject to satisfaction of the competent authority regarding financial viability, reasonableness of rates, technical suitability and overall public interest considerations. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim award of contract as a matter of right merely on the basis of being the lowest bidder. He submits that there exists no statutory provision, mandatory rule or binding tender condition compelling the respondent authorities to undertake negotiation in every second-call tender process. The decision as to whether negotiations are required to be conducted or not squarely falls within the administrative and commercial wisdom of the competent authority, which is required to assess overall financial implications and public interest before taking any decision. 26. It is contended that in the present case, upon evaluation of the rates quoted by the petitioner, the competent authority found the same to be substantially high, financially unreasonable and contrary to the principles governing prudent public procurement. In such circumstances, the authority, in its considered administrative wisdom, deemed it inappropriate to proceed with negotiations and consequently decided to reject the bid and cancel the tender process in order to safeguard public revenue and ensure fiscal discipline. 27. Refuting the allegations of discrimination, learned counsel submits that the comparison sought to be made by the petitioner with other tenders wherein higher rates were allegedly accepted is wholly misconceived, misleading and legally untenable. It is submitted that each tender/work is distinct and independent in nature and is governed 13 by its own technical specifications, scope of work, site conditions, contractual obligations, applicable Schedule of Rates, financial implications and project requirements. Therefore, no parity can be claimed on the basis of unrelated and incomparable contracts. 28. It is further submitted that the examples relied upon by the petitioner pertain to entirely different categories of works executed under different factual, technical and financial circumstances and under different SOR regimes. Consequently, the petitioner has deliberately attempted to equate incomparable works merely to create a false impression of discrimination before this Court. The impugned decision has been taken bona fide, after due consideration of all relevant aspects and strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT and applicable procurement norms. No mala fide, arbitrariness, favouritism or discrimination whatsoever is involved in the matter. The decision-making process is fair, transparent and based upon objective financial considerations is further argued that the settled position of law consistently laid down by the Apex Court is that Constitutional Courts, while exercising powers of judicial review in tender and contractual matters, do not sit as appellate authorities over administrative or commercial decisions taken by expert bodies. Unless the decision- making process is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or against public interest, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wholly unwarranted. 29. Lastly, he submits that in the present case no material whatsoever has been placed by the petitioner to establish mala fide 14 intention, procedural illegality or arbitrariness in the decision-making process. The impugned action has been taken strictly in public interest and upon and rate reasonableness. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, as the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently denies the averments of the State counsel stating to be misconceived, arbitrary and contrary to the record of the case. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to justify the impugned action on the touchstone of fairness, transparency and reasonableness as mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She submits that though the respondents seek to justify cancellation of the tender on the ground of financial prudence and public interest, the records themselves reveal that both the Executive Engineer and the Chief Engineer had specifically recommended approval of the Petitioner’s bid in governmental and public interest. Despite such recommendations, the Tender Committee mechanically proceeded to cancel the tender without considering the process of negotiation though the same is expressly contemplated under the tender conditions. 31. The Petitioner has never claimed any indefeasible right merely on account of being declared L-1 bidder; however, the decision-making process adopted by the respondents is ex facie arbitrary, discriminatory and vitiated by non-application of mind. The repeated cancellation of 15 the tender, despite the Petitioner being declared L-1 bidder in successive rounds, coupled with approval of substantially higher bids in similar tenders, clearly establishes hostile discrimination and mala fide exercise of power. 32. It is contended that the stand of the respondents that different tenders cannot be compared is wholly untenable, particularly when the Schedule of Rates(SOR) forms the common basis for evaluation of tender costs and quoted rates. The respondents have failed to assign any rational basis as to why bids substantially higher than the estimated value were accepted in other cases, whereas the Petitioner’s bid, being only approximately 18% above the estimated cost, was rejected without even resorting to negotiation. The impugned action also defeats public interest, inasmuch as repeated re-tendering would unnecessarily burden the public exchequer and delay execution of the public project, whereas negotiation with the Petitioner, who is willing to revise and rationalize the rates, would have better served the interest of the State. It is submitted that this Court, in WP(C) No. 2064/2026 (M/s Vineet Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), has already observed arbitrariness and lack of transparency in rejection of the Petitioner’s bids, thereby lending support to the Petitioner’s grievance regarding discriminatory treatment and therefore, it is submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in cancelling the tender process is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, deserves to be quashed by this Court. 16 33. 16 33. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon due consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record and the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out in the present case. 34. The challenge in the present writ petition is directed against the communication dated 27.03.2026 and Tender Cancellation Notice dated 10.04.2026 whereby the tender process in question came to be cancelled on the ground that the rates quoted by the Petitioner were found to be substantially higher and financially unreasonable. 35. The undisputed position emerging from the record is that the Petitioner was declared as L-1 bidder in the second-call tender; however, the rates quoted by the Petitioner were approximately 18% above the departmental estimated cost/Schedule of Rates (SOR). The material available on record further reveals that the competent authority, upon evaluation of the prevailing market conditions, financial implications, rate reasonability and larger public interest considerations, formed an opinion that acceptance of the bid would not be financially prudent and would adversely affect public revenue. 36. The State, being custodian of public funds, is under a constitutional obligation to ensure financial propriety, transparency and prudent utilization of public money in matters relating to public procurement. The decision-making process undertaken by the competent authority, therefore, cannot be faulted merely because the 17 Petitioner happened to be the lowest bidder. 37. It is a settled proposition of law that a bidder, merely by virtue of being declared L-1, does not acquire any vested or indefeasible right to seek award of contract. The tendering authority retains the discretion to accept or reject any bid keeping in view fiscal prudence, commercial wisdom and larger public interest. However, such discretion is not absolute or unfettered and is required to be exercised in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner. In the present case, this Court finds that the rejection of the petitioner’s bid rests merely upon a generalized observation that the quoted rate of approximately 18% above the estimated cost was financially unreasonable. No comparative analysis, objective criteria or supporting material has been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate such conclusion. On the contrary, the petitioner’s specific contention that substantially higher bids in similar tenders had been approved by the respondents has not been effectively rebutted. 38. The contention of the Petitioner that negotiation ought to have been undertaken also does not merit acceptance. No statutory provision, binding rule or mandatory tender condition has been brought to the notice of this Court which obligates the respondents to compulsorily undertake negotiations in every second-call tender process. The decision as to whether negotiations are required to be conducted or not squarely falls within the administrative domain of the competent authority. 18 39. In the present case, upon evaluation of the rates quoted by the Petitioner, which were found to be substantially high and financially unreasonable, the competent authority, in its considered wisdom, deemed it inappropriate to proceed with negotiations and consequently cancelled the tender process in order to safeguard public revenue and ensure prudent utilization of public funds. Such a decision, being founded upon financial and administrative considerations, cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational warranting interference by this Court. 40. The further submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner regarding acceptance of higher bids in other tenders is equally misconceived. Each tender/work is distinct and governed by its own scope of work, technical specifications, site conditions, contractual obligations, applicable Schedule of Rates and financial implications. Therefore, no parity can be claimed by comparing unrelated contracts executed under different factual and financial circumstances. 41. This Court further finds that the repeated rejection of the petitioner’s bid, despite the petitioner being declared ‘L-1’ bidder in successive rounds and despite favorable recommendations by the competent technical authorities, reflects arbitrariness and non- application of mind on the part of the respondents. The decision-making process adopted by the Tender Evaluation Committee does not satisfy the requirements of reasonableness and transparency, which constitute essential facets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the limited scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters and does not deem it appropriate to 19 compel the respondents to award the contract in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, in order to balance the equities and to subserve the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that though the respondents were within their authority to cancel the tender process, the manner in which the petitioner was subjected to repeated rejection without any transparent or objective assessment warrants limited interference by this Court. 42. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioner as compensation for arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.15 15:15:30 +0530