1 2026:CGHC:26231-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3140 of 2026 M/s Charanpaaduka Industries Pvt Ltd Through Its Ar, Vaibhav Gupta, Situated At- 11/371, First Floor, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi- 110018 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Forest And Climate Change Department, Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading And Development) Cooperative Federation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Van Dhan Bhawan Sector-24, Nava Sector- 24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Garg, Advocate along with Ms. Dyna Bajrang, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G. Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.06.29 17:44:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Prem Garg, Advocate along with Ms. Dyna Bajrang, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State as well as Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “1. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondent no 2; and 2. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to pass a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions thereby directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of petitioner sent to respondent no. 2 vide e-mail(s) dated 08.06.2026 & 10.06.2026 before allowing the submissions of bid against bidding document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026; and 3. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to pass a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or directions thereby quashing the above mentioned 3 arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable terms and conditions contained in bidding document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026 and its Additional Terms and Conditions, in the interest of justice and equity; and 4. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to Pass any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, just and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no. 2.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a reputed manufacturer and supplier of footwear having more than 26 years of experience in the shoe manufacturing industry and is a Micro Enterprise registered under the MSMED Act, 2006. The respondent issued Bid Document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026 through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) for procurement of approximately 12.40 lakh pairs of Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes with PU Sole for Tendupatta Pluckers. Being an eligible and prospective bidder, the petitioner intended to participate in the tender process, however, upon examining the bidding document and its Additional Terms & Conditions (ATC), the petitioner found several eligibility conditions and technical requirements to be arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and contrary to the settled principles governing public procurement, thereby restricting fair competition and favouring only a handful of large entities. 4 4. That the bidding document neither provides any mechanism for a pre-bid meeting nor any opportunity for prospective bidders to seek clarification or raise objections regarding the tender conditions. Consequently, the petitioner submitted detailed representations dated 08.06.2026 and 10.06.2026 through e-mail and Speed Post, pointing out various illegalities and irregularities in the tender, including the absence of a pre-bid consultation mechanism, application of an incorrect BIS standard meant for safety footwear instead of casual canvas shoes, excessive and disproportionate requirements relating to past experience, annual turnover, ownership of four PU moulding machines and solvency certificate, non-compliance with the MSMED Act, 2006 and the Public Procurement Policy, 2012 by excluding Micro and Small Enterprises, and unjustified deviation from the eligibility criteria prescribed in the respondent's earlier tender for an identical procurement. Despite receipt of the said representations, the respondent failed to consider or decide the same, compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned bidding document and its Additional Terms & Conditions (ATC) are ex facie arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as the eligibility conditions have been tailor-made to restrict participation to a handful of large entities, thereby defeating the principles of fairness, transparency and healthy competition in public procurement. It is contended that the 5 tender document has been issued in complete disregard of the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006, the Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises, 2012 and the General Financial Rules, 2017, inasmuch as it does not provide for a pre-bid meeting or any mechanism for seeking clarification, prescribes an incorrect BIS standard applicable to safety footwear instead of casual canvas walking shoes, imposes wholly disproportionate conditions regarding past experience, annual turnover, ownership of four PU moulding machines and solvency certificate, and effectively excludes Micro and Small Enterprises from participating despite the statutory protections and exemptions available to them. It is further submitted that the respondent has substantially enhanced the technical and financial eligibility criteria in comparison to its earlier tender for an identical procurement without any rational basis or justification, thereby rendering the tender conditions arbitrary, irrational and designed to favour selected bidders. Learned counsel would further submit that, in the earlier tender floated in the year 2024, the respondent had invited bids for the product category "Walking Shoes (Q3)", whereas in the present tender dated 04.06.2026, the product category has been changed to "Safety Footwear (V3) ISI Marked to IS 15298 (Part-2) (Q2)", despite the procurement being for Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes. It is submitted that the required product category corresponding to the subject goods is not available on the GeM Portal and, therefore, even if the petitioner attempts to submit its bid online, the GeM Portal does not permit submission under the impugned category, thereby virtually 6 preventing eligible manufacturers from participating in the bidding process. It is lastly submitted that despite detailed representations submitted by the petitioner pointing out these illegalities and anomalies, the respondent initially failed to consider the same, compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits the impugned bidding document and the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) have been framed by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the procurement requirements and applicable rules with the object of ensuring participation of technically competent, financially sound and credible bidders capable of executing the contract within the stipulated time. It is submitted that there is no statutory mandate under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 or any other applicable provision requiring a pre-bid meeting in every procurement, and the bid documents were made available on the GeM Portal with adequate opportunity to seek clarifications through the available mechanism. It is further submitted that since no specific category for "Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes" was available on the GeM Portal, the nearest available category was selected only for operational purposes, whereas the actual technical specifications and eligibility criteria were clearly prescribed in the tender documents and ATC. Learned counsel further submits that the procuring authority is fully competent to prescribe the applicable technical specifications, BIS standards, eligibility conditions relating to past experience, annual 7 turnover, manufacturing infrastructure, PU sole machines and solvency requirements, considering the magnitude, complexity, value and time- bound nature of the procurement, and such conditions are uniformly applicable to all prospective bidders without conferring any undue advantage upon any particular entity. It is also argued that the criteria cannot be termed arbitrary merely because they differ from those adopted in earlier tenders, as each procurement is to be assessed independently based on its own requirements. It is lastly submitted that the allegations of favouritism, bias, mala fides and violation of the GeM guidelines are wholly unfounded, no procedural illegality has been committed in the tender process, and upon examination of the petitioner's representations, no ground was found warranting cancellation, suspension or withdrawal of the impugned tender. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. This Court has considered the stand taken by respondent No.2. The record reflects that the impugned bidding document and the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) have been framed by the competent authority keeping in view the nature, magnitude and complexity of the procurement. It is also evident that there is no statutory provision under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 or any other applicable law mandating the conduct of a pre-bid meeting in every procurement. The material on record further indicates that, in the absence of a specific category for "Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes" on the GeM Portal, the nearest available category was selected 8 for operational purposes, while the actual technical specifications and eligibility criteria were separately prescribed in the bidding document and the ATC. The eligibility conditions relating to BIS standards, past experience, annual turnover, manufacturing infrastructure, PU sole machines and solvency have been uniformly made applicable to all prospective bidders with the stated object of ensuring participation of technically competent and financially sound bidders. Merely because the eligibility criteria differ from those contained in an earlier tender would not, by itself, render the impugned conditions arbitrary or discriminatory. The record also reveals that the petitioner's representation has been considered and decided by a reasoned order dated 23.06.2026. 9. This Court also considered the stand taken by the petitioner in his submission that, in the earlier tender floated by respondent No.2 in the year 2024, the product category on the GeM Portal was "Walking Shoes (Q3)", whereas in the present tender dated 04.06.2026, the product category has been changed to "Safety Footwear (V3) ISI Marked to IS 15298 (Part-2) (Q2)". It is not in dispute that the procurement under the present tender is for Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes. The material placed on record further indicates that the required item category corresponding to the subject product is not available on the GeM Portal. Consequently, the petitioner, despite being desirous of participating in the bidding process, would be unable to submit its bid through the online mode under the prescribed category, as the GeM Portal would not accept the bid. Such a discrepancy between the product sought to 9 be procured and the category provided on the GeM Portal has the effect of preventing the petitioner from participating in the tender process and cannot be ignored by this Court while examining the validity of the impugned tender conditions. 10. On being specifically asked by this Court to file a return, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that he does not wish to file any return in the matter. He fairly submits that after the filing of the present writ petition, the respondent has considered and decided the representation submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2026, which has been placed on record as Annexure P/9, and, therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in paragraph 10.2 of the writ petition stands redressed. However, when called upon to justify the rationale behind the additional terms and conditions incorporated in Bid Document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026, learned counsel is unable to satisfactorily explain the basis for prescribing such stringent eligibility conditions, particularly in the backdrop of the previous tender floated by the respondent for substantially similar procurement. In the absence of any cogent material demonstrating the necessity or proportionality of the impugned conditions, this Court is of the considered view that the eligibility criteria incorporated in the impugned bidding document suffer from arbitrariness and have the effect of restricting fair competition, thereby offending the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the impugned Bid Document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026, along with the Additional 10 Terms and Conditions (ATC), is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) with such terms and conditions as they may deem fit, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the governing principles of public procurement. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall forthwith communicate this order today itself to the concerned authorities for its immediate compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika