1 2026:CGHC:25296-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2976 of 2026 Jpw Infratech Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 2013, Having Its Registered Office At Room No. 230, Unit No. M-1, Fairlie Place, Hmp House, 2nd Floor, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata 700001 And Corporate Office At Office Nos. 501 To 505 And 516 To 520 Skyz Commercial, 5th Floor, Anandam World City, Kachna, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001, Acting As Lead Member Of The Consortium Comprising Jpw Infratech Private Limited, Euro Pratik Ispat (India) Private Limited And Goldbricks Infrastructure Private Limited, Through Its Director And Authorized Representative Mr. Abhishek Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Jugal Kishore Agrawal, R/o 15, Satnam Nagar, Near Airtel Office, Ring Road No. 1, Telibhanda, Purena (Amlidih), Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Manager Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, 1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashoka Buidlcom Limited Through Its Chief Operating Officer, Registered Office At S No. 861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Vadala, Nashik, Maharashtra 422011 (Lead Member Of The Consortium Consisting Of Ashoka Buildcon And Rdb Real Estate Constructions Ltd) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.23 11:02:49 +0530 2 4 - Rdb Real Estate Constructions Ltd Through Its Managing Director, Having Registered Office At Bikaner Building 8/1 Lal Bazar Street, 1st Floor, Room No. 11, Distt. Kolkata 700001) West Bengal, Member Consortium Consisting Of Ashoka Buildcon And Rdb Real Estate Constructions Ltd) 5 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, 1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/CSIDC : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/CSIDC. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in declaring the consortium of respondent Nos.3 and 4 as technically qualified pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP No. CSIDC/G&J/RFP/01(01) of 2026 dated 24.04.2026) issued for development of the "Gems & Jewellery Park", Raipur under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode, and consequentially treating respondent No.3 consortium as the successful bidder, primarily on the 3 ground that respondent Nos.3 and 4 allegedly failed to satisfy the mandatory technical eligibility conditions prescribed under the Request for Proposal (RFP), yet were illegally and arbitrarily declared eligible despite the detailed objections submitted by the petitioner prior to opening of the financial bids. 3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1–Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC) issued Request for Proposal (RFP No. CSIDC/G&J/RFP/01(01) of 2026 dated 24.04.2026) inviting bids for development of the "Gems & Jewellery Park", Raipur under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode. The petitioner, acting as the Lead Member of a consortium comprising JPW Infratech Private Limited, Euro Pratik Ispat (India) Private Limited and Goldbricks Infrastructure Private Limited, participated in the tender process and claims to have fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the RFP. According to the petitioner, upon scrutiny of the bid documents submitted by the consortium comprising respondent Nos.3 and 4, it noticed several material deficiencies pertaining to the mandatory technical eligibility criteria and, therefore, submitted a detailed representation/objection dated 29.05.2026 before the respondent authorities pointing out various alleged discrepancies in the project experience, completion of qualifying projects, computation of FAR area and project cost, non-submission of mandatory documents, defects in the consortium documents and authorization, and non-compliance with the prescribed forms and certification requirements under the RFP. 4 ******* It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid objections, respondent Nos.1 and 2 neither considered the representation by passing any reasoned order nor examined the alleged deficiencies in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Instead, on 03.06.2026, the respondent authorities declared the consortium of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be technically qualified and thereafter proceeded to open its financial bid and ultimately treated respondent No.3 consortium as the successful bidder. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition contending that the decision of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, violative of the conditions of the RFP and the principles governing fairness and transparency in public procurement, and has prayed for appropriate reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the tender process pursuant to the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by respondent No.1 and had fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed therein. It is contended that despite the petitioner having submitted a detailed representation pointing out several alleged deficiencies and non-compliance on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4 with the mandatory technical eligibility conditions of the RFP, the respondent authorities proceeded to declare respondent Nos.3 and 4 technically qualified and thereafter opened their financial bid without objectively considering the petitioner's objections. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, contrary to the terms and conditions of the RFP and violative of the principles of fairness and transparency governing public procurement. 5 ******* Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that during the pendency of the present writ petition, a Letter of Acceptance has already been issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 10.06.2026. In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel prays that the present writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the subsequent Letter of Acceptance dated 10.06.2026 and all consequential actions in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5/CSIDC submits that the tender process has substantially progressed and, pursuant to the evaluation undertaken by the competent authority, the Letter of Acceptance has already been issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent development, if the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present writ petition with liberty to assail the subsequent Letter of Acceptance, the respondents have no serious objection to such liberty being granted, subject to all objections available to them in law being kept open. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the tender process has progressed further and the respondent authorities have issued the Letter of Acceptance dated 10.06.2026 in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Since the principal challenge in the present writ petition was confined to the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in declaring respondent Nos.3 and 4 technically qualified and thereafter 6 opening their financial bid, and in view of the subsequent issuance of the Letter of Acceptance, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to challenge the subsequent Letter of Acceptance dated 10.06.2026 and all consequential actions, if so advised. 8. Considering the aforesaid subsequent development and the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, to which learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 has no serious objection, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Letter of Acceptance dated 10.06.2026 and all consequential proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved