2026:CGHC:22529-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2434 of 2026 M/s Shreeji Infrastructure India Private Limited Having Its Registered Office 513, Vth Floor, Shubham Corporate Ring Road No. 1 Telibandha, Near Railway Crossing, Raipur (C.G.) Through Its C.F.O. Himanshu Kalraiya ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer (Tender Cell) Public Works Department, National Highway Zone, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway Zone, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Superintending Engineer National Highway Zone, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Executive Engineer National Highway Division, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Union Of India Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highways, Through Its Regional Office National Highway Campus, Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri TK Jha, Senior Advocate with Shri Aman Tamboli, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Addl AG For the Union of India : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSG with Shri Neeraj Baghel, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.19 13:33:27 +0530 Wpc2434 of 2026 2 13.05.2026 Heard shri TK Jha, Senior Advocate with Shri Aman Tamboli, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, Addl AG appearing for the State, and Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSG with Shri Neeraj Baghel, learned counsel for the Union of India. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition with the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in respect of the present NIT and 1ˢᵗ Round also kept in the possession of the Respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to submit his bid which shall be duly considered by the respondents along with other bids and thereafter tender be finalized in accordance with law. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ” 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the unlawful action of the respondent authorities who have unlawfully and illegally denied opportunity to petitioner. 3. With consent of parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage. 4. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the tender process initiated pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender dated 25.03.2026 Wpc2434 of 2026 3 issued for “Execution of Balance Work estimate of Rehabilitation and up gradation of NH-43 from 468.600 to 531.250 (Pathalgaon to Kunkuri Section) to Two Lane with Paved Shoulder in the State of Chhattisgarh on SBD Mode under NH(O)” primarily on the ground that adequate time was not granted after issuance of pre-bid clarifications and corrigendum dated 20.04.2026 and further alleging arbitrariness, favoritism and cartelization in the tender process. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in infrastructure development works relating to roads, bridges and allied projects and claims to be eligible to participate in the subject tender having estimated value of Rs.158.39 Crores. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the tender was floated on 25.03.2026 and pre-bid meeting was conducted on 10.04.2026, substantial clarifications along with corrigendum and detailed drawings/designs were supplied only on 20.04.2026. According to the petitioner, in view of the magnitude and technical nature of the work, sufficient time ought to have been granted to enable bidders to conduct due diligence, site inspection, technical evaluation and financial assessment before submission of bids. It is contended that despite representation dated 22.04.2026 seeking extension of time, the respondents proceeded with the bid process without extending the last date of submission of bids. It is further pleaded that the earlier tender floated on 03.12.2025 was cancelled and thereafter the present NIT was issued without disclosing it to be a second call tender. The petitioner alleges that the same set of bidders, who had participated earlier, have Wpc2434 of 2026 4 been again declared technically qualified and therefore, the entire process suffers from favoritism, cartelization and mala fide. On such grounds, the petitioner seeks direction permitting it to submit its bid and for reconsideration of the tender process. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in not extending the date of submission of bids after issuance of corrigendum and pre-bid clarifications is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the corrigendum dated 20.04.2026 introduced substantial changes including detailed drawings and designs which were absent in the original tender document and therefore the bidders were required to undertake fresh technical and financial evaluation before submission of bids. It is further contended that the respondents acted in undue haste and denied a fair opportunity to the petitioner and other eligible contractors to participate in the tender process. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the conduct of the respondents clearly indicates favoritism towards certain bidders who had participated in the earlier tender also. According to him, despite substantial defects in the original NIT and despite issuance of corrigendum running into several pages, the same set of bidders conveniently participated and were declared technically qualified, which itself demonstrates cartelization and pre-determined exercise. Reliance has also been placed on the procurement guidelines issued by the Central Government to contend Wpc2434 of 2026 5 that after issuance of clarification/corrigendum, reasonable time ought to have been granted for submission of bids. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State as well as the Union of India would submit that the petitioner voluntarily chose not to participate in the tender process and after having abstained from participation, now, they cannot challenge the process merely on apprehensions and bald allegations of mala fides. It is submitted that all relevant information, clarifications and corrigendum were uploaded on the portal and made available uniformly to all bidders. The tender process was conducted transparently through online mode and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations of favoritism, cartelization and mala fides are vague, bald and unsupported by any material whatsoever. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioner has failed to implead any successful bidder against whom allegations of favoritism are levelled and no material has been placed to demonstrate that the decision-making process suffered from arbitrariness or was intended to favour any particular party. It is further contended that in contractual and tender matters, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited and unless action of the authority is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by mala fides, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted. Wpc2434 of 2026 6 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition. The settled legal position with regard to judicial review in contractual and tender matters is that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over commercial decisions taken by expert bodies and interference is permissible only where the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or intended to favour someone. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over administrative decisions and judicial review is confined only to examining the decision-making process. The Court summarized the principles governing judicial review in tender matters as under: 1. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. 2. The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. 3. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. 4. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. Wpc2434 of 2026 7 5. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair-play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 6. Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (2016) 16 SCC 818. reiterated that the owner or employer of the project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and constitutional courts must defer to such understanding unless mala fide or perversity is demonstrated. Similar view has been reiterated in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd (2016) 15 SCC 272 wherein it has been held that technical evaluation of bids and interpretation of tender conditions should ordinarily be left to the tendering authority and courts should exercise restraint unless the process is arbitrary or actuated by mala fides. 11. Further, in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that courts should not interfere in commercial and contractual matters merely because another view is possible and that courts should not use a magnifying glass while examining tender processes. It was further held that interference is warranted only when overwhelming public interest is Wpc2434 of 2026 8 shown or when the action of the authority is ex facie arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide. 12. Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made ‘lawfully’ and not to check whether choice or decision is ‘sound’. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind.” 13. In the present case, except making bald and omnibus allegations regarding favoritism and cartelization, the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material before this Court to substantiate the same. Merely because the same set of bidders participated in the previous tender and have again participated in the present tender, no inference of cartelization or mala fides can automatically be drawn. The petitioner admittedly did not submit its bid and has approached this Court only after opening of the technical bids. The material available on record further demonstrates that the corrigendum and pre-bid clarifications were uploaded on the portal and were made uniformly available to all intending bidders. Whether the time granted was adequate or not is essentially within the domain of the tendering authority and in absence of demonstrable arbitrariness or Wpc2434 of 2026 9 prejudice, this Court would be slow in interfering in such commercial matters. In addition to the above, as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, final bid has already been opened yesterday, i.e.12.05.2026. 14. In view of above, this Court is also of the opinion that grant of relief as sought by the petitioner at this stage would result in interference with an ongoing public infrastructure project and would adversely affect public interest. The petitioner has failed to establish violation of any statutory provision or arbitrariness of such nature warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma