1 2026:CGHC:23088-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2283 of 2026 1 - M/s Arya Construction Company Partnership Firm, G S T I N 22 A A Q F A 0154 M I Z I, Seva Kunj Road, Near Girls College Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Abhishek Nangalia S/o Late Vijay Kumar Nangalia Aged About 34 Years Partner Of M/s Arya Constructions Company Contractor R/o House No. 38, Aishwarya Residency G.E. Road Telibandha, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department Sector- 19 Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Water Resources Department, Office Of Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Raigarh District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Office Of Superintending Engineer Water Resources Department Circle Raigarh District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - M/s Sanjay Kumar Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Shri Shayam Tower Kavita Nagar, Main Road Avanti Vihar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Add. A.G. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.19 11:24:05 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Sameer Uraon, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents/State. 2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “I. A writ and/ or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities concerned pertaining to tender no. 181787 of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case. ii. That the Hon'ble Court may please to issue appropriate order/directing/issuing writ of appropriate nature for quashing the tender being unreasonable or arbitrarily, illegal as the same is in order to choose particular tender or blue-eyed boy or have been made without application of mind in facts and circumstances of the case. iii. That the Hon'ble Court may please to issue appropriate order/directing/issuing writ in the appropriate nature of commanding directing the respondent authority to open the petitioner tender and or to decide the pending application of the petitioner and or direct to re tender the whole tender and or disqualify the respondent no.4 as it is done secretlyand not transparent in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 iv. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just may also kindly be made including cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a duly registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act, 1932, carrying on the business of large-scale civil construction works including roads, canals, bridges, dams, buildings and allied infrastructure projects for various Government departments such as PWD, PHE, Irrigation and BSNL. The petitioner is a registered “Class-A” contractor with the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh, holding valid registration No. CGeR05968 and GSTIN No. 22AAQFA0154M1ZI, and has successfully executed several Government projects over the years. The present dispute arises out of Tender No. 181787 floated for construction of Kharraghat Anicut/Barrage and Bank Protection Works, having an estimated value of ₹3454.93 lakhs, with earnest money of ₹5 lakhs and contract period of 24 months. The petitioner participated in the said tender process in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However, despite compliance with all eligibility conditions, its technical bid was not opened either physically on 05.01.2026 or reflected on the online portal, contrary to the tender conditions mandating transparent and simultaneous opening of Envelope A and B in the presence of bidders or their authorized representatives. Thereafter, Envelope C (financial bid) was allegedly opened on 13.03.2026 after an unexplained and inordinate delay, and respondent No.4 was 4 declared successful, despite the petitioner being a more competitive bidder. The petitioner, upon making repeated inquiries, was not furnished any written reason for non-opening of its bid, and was only orally informed of its alleged disqualification, which was never communicated in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 13.04.2026 requesting disclosure of reasons and re-evaluation of its bid, however, no response was provided, thereby reflecting complete non-compliance with principles of natural justice, transparency and fairness governing public procurement. 4. It is further submitted that the entire tender process is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-transparency and mala fides, thereby attracting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent authorities, being instrumentalities of the State, are duty-bound to act fairly, reasonably and in a non-discriminatory manner while dealing with public contracts, as consistently held in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Maa Binda Express Carrier v. NFR (2014) 3 SCC 760, and ABL International Ltd. v. ECGC (2004) 3 SCC 553. The selective non-opening of the petitioner’s bid, unexplained delay in opening financial bids, and eventual award of contract to respondent No.4 despite alleged non-compliance of tender conditions, clearly demonstrate violation of the “level playing field” doctrine under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 14 of the Constitution, and constitute malice in law and arbitrariness. The petitioner’s 5 financial bid being lower than that of respondent No.4, the non- consideration of its offer has caused direct prejudice and loss of opportunity in a competitive bidding process where eligibility, once established, creates a legitimate expectation of fair consideration. The impugned action, therefore, defeats the object of public procurement, undermines transparency in State largesse distribution, and warrants interference by this Court to set aside the arbitrary tender decision and restore the integrity of the process in accordance with settled constitutional and contractual principles governing State action. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the reliefs sought by the petitioner are misconceived and are founded on incorrect assumptions regarding the tender process in question. The petitioner has alleged non-transparency, arbitrariness and favouritism towards respondent No.4, primarily on the ground that its bid was not considered and that the tender process allegedly deviated from prescribed norms. It is further alleged that there was delay in opening of Envelope C, that respondent No.4 was improperly selected despite higher bid value, and that the petitioner was not duly informed regarding disqualification or evaluation of its bid. These allegations are wholly denied as false, baseless and contrary to the record. The answering respondents submit that the entire tender process was conducted strictly in accordance with the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) conditions, through an online transparent system, and in conformity with 6 established procedure governing public procurement. The petitioner’s participation was duly considered along with other bidders, and its eligibility was examined by the competent Tender Evaluation Committee. Upon receipt of a specific complaint alleging discrepancies in the petitioner’s declaration regarding “work in hand” and “balance work”, the Committee, in discharge of its public duty, sought clarification from the petitioner through e- mail dated 05.02.2026, thereby affording adequate opportunity of hearing. However, the petitioner failed to submit any response, whereafter, upon due scrutiny of official online departmental records vis-à-vis the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, material discrepancies were found. Consequently, the petitioner was rightly declared disqualified by the Committee meeting dated 03.03.2026, in accordance with the tender conditions and principles of fair evaluation. 6. It is further submitted that after due evaluation of all bidders, including verification of technical and eligibility criteria, only qualified bidders were considered for financial evaluation, and thereafter the financial bids were opened on 06.03.2026 in accordance with the scheduled procedure. The allegation that Envelope C was arbitrarily delayed or that the process was manipulated is wholly incorrect and unsupported by record. The entire process remained compliant with the prescribed timelines and system-driven protocol under the e-tendering framework. The petitioner’s claim that respondent No.4 was favoured is a bald and 7 speculative assertion without any material basis. On the contrary, the petitioner was disqualified on objective and verifiable grounds arising from submission of incorrect information, which strikes at the root of eligibility and vitiates participation itself. It is settled law that participation in a tender confers no vested right unless the bidder satisfies all eligibility conditions, and courts ordinarily do not interfere in matters of contractual evaluation unless the decision is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary or irrational. In the present case, the decision-making process was transparent, reasoned and uniformly applied to all bidders. The petitioner, having failed to establish compliance with essential eligibility criteria and having failed to respond to the opportunity granted, cannot now challenge the consequential disqualification. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit, does not disclose any violation of constitutional or legal rights, and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to submission made by learned State counsel, submitted additional documents stating that the email communication relied upon by the respondents, allegedly forming the basis of initiation of proceedings, does not pertain to the present tender but relates to Tender No. 180966 concerning a different work at Ambikapur. The said communication, which was unconnected with the present tender process, has been erroneously and mechanically relied upon to disqualify the petitioner from Tender No. 181787 without any 8 independent application of mind or initiation of a separate proceeding specific to the present tender. The petitioner further submits that in Tender No. 180966, the petitioner had already been declared L-2 bidder and the process therein had proceeded independently, thereby rendering the reliance placed upon the said complaint in the present tender wholly misconceived. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner had duly submitted a detailed reply dated 22.04.2026, which is being placed on record as Annexure A-1, thereby disproving the respondents’ contention that no response was furnished. It is further submitted that the so- called disqualification proceedings suffer from serious procedural infirmities, including absence of proper date, lack of independent reasoning, and non-disclosure of any material specifically relatable to Tender No. 181787. The petitioner submits that no separate complaint or adverse material was ever supplied to the petitioner in relation to the present tender, and therefore the impugned action is violative of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the reliance on extraneous material, absence of proper consideration of reply, and lack of a speaking and reasoned order clearly demonstrate that the decision is post- facto, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, warranting interference by this Court. 9. In response to the above, learned counsel for respondents/State argued that the contention raised by the petitioner that the complaint relied upon by the respondents pertained to an entirely 9 different tender is misconceived and is belied by the petitioner’s own documents placed on record. The record clearly demonstrates that correspondence was addressed to the petitioner through email seeking clarification regarding discrepancies in the “work in hand” certificate, and the petitioner itself has replied to the said communication vide letter dated 22.04.2026 addressed to the Chief Engineer (Tender Cell), Water Resources Department, Raipur. The said reply, which is annexed as Annexure A-1, specifically refers to multiple emails dated 05.02.2026, 27.03.2026 and 09.04.2026, thereby establishing that the petitioner was duly put to notice regarding scrutiny of its declarations and was afforded opportunity to submit its explanation. 10. It has been further argued that the petitioner’s own reply dated 22.04.2026 admits and addresses the issue of “work in hand certificate” and clarifies the alleged discrepancy by referring to withholding of certain amounts due to testing and departmental adjustments. This itself demonstrates that the petitioner was aware of the subject matter of scrutiny and had participated in the process of clarification. Therefore, the submission that no opportunity was granted or that the proceedings were unrelated to the present tender is factually incorrect and contrary to the documentary record. The communication was part of the tender evaluation process involving verification of eligibility conditions across tenders and cannot be artificially compartmentalized as 10 being unrelated to Tender No. 181787. It is thus evident that due opportunity was granted, the petitioner responded thereto, and the decision of disqualification was taken only after due consideration of the material discrepancies noticed in the petitioner’s declarations vis-à-vis official records. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the tender process in question was conducted through an online system governed by the Notice Inviting Tender conditions, which clearly prescribed the procedure for submission, scrutiny, and evaluation of bids. The record reveals that upon receipt of a complaint regarding discrepancies in the petitioner’s declaration relating to “work in hand” and “balance work”, the Tender Evaluation Committee sought clarification from the petitioner through email communication and afforded opportunity to submit its explanation. The petitioner, in fact, responded to the said communication, and its reply dated 22.04.2026 has been taken into consideration by the authorities. Upon verification of the petitioner’s disclosures with official departmental records, material discrepancies were found, whereafter the competent authority, in accordance with the tender conditions, declared the petitioner disqualified. The 11 financial bids were thereafter opened only in respect of eligible bidders and the contract was awarded accordingly. 13. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory or constitutional mandate in the decision-making process. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters, particularly in matters of tender evaluation, is limited to examining the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. In the present case, the evaluation process is found to be transparent, reasoned, and in conformity with the conditions of the tender. Mere allegations of bias or irregularity, unsupported by cogent material, cannot be a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further well settled that participation in a tender process does not confer any vested right upon a bidder unless it satisfies all eligibility conditions prescribed therein. Since the petitioner was found ineligible on the basis of objective scrutiny of records and discrepancies in its own declarations, no enforceable legal right can be said to have accrued in its favour. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned action of the respondents. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet