1 2026:CGHC:26230-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3135 of 2026 M/s Pearl India Marketing Services Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory/representative, Having Its Office At Plot No. F-281, Behind Gumber Petrol Pump, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002 2 - Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (C R E D A) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, C.R.E.D.A, V I P Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492006 3 - Superintendent Engineer R E -1, C R E D A, V I P Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492006 4 - Executive Engineer R E -V, C.R.E.D.A. V I P Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492006 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.30 10:50:53 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ayush Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) Ref. No. 2708/CREDA/SPVHLS/2026-27 dated 08.06.2026 and the E-Bid Document No. 192875/CREDA/SPVHLS/2026-27 dated 09.06.2026, issued by respondent-CREDA for supply, installation and commissioning of 753 Solar Photovoltaic Home Lighting Systems, to the extent the respondents have sought to re-tender the very same 753 systems which were earlier allotted to the petitioner and whose work order was subsequently cancelled, contending that such re- tendering during the pendency of the petitioner's contractual dispute resolution proceedings is arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “In view of the facts pleaded, documents relied upon and grounds urged, the petitioner most 3 respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned fresh NIT Ref. No. 2708/CREDA/SPVHLS/2026-27 dated 08.06.2026 and E-Bid Document No. 192875/CREDA/SPVHLS/2026-27 dated 09.06.2026, to the extent the same seeks to re-tender the 753 Solar Home Light Systems earlier allotted to and thereafter cancelled from the Petitioner; B. In the alternative, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from finalising the impugned tender, issuing LOI/work order, or creating any third-party rights pursuant to NIT Ref. No. 2708/CREDA/ SPVHLS/2026-27 dated 08.06.2026 / E- Bid Document No. 192875/CREDA/ SPVHLS/2026-27 dated 09.06.2026, till the Petitioner's invoked contractual dispute resolution proceedings in respect of cancellation of 753 systems are considered in accordance with law; C. Hold that the action of Respondent- CREDA in re-tendering the same 753 Solar Home Light Systems, while the Petitioner's remedy against cancellation of the said systems has already been invoked and is pending/available, is arbitrary, unfair, colourable, self- 4 contradictory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; D. Direct the Respondents not to treat the Petitioner as blacklisted, debarred or disqualified on the basis of the blacklisting orders dated 05.05.2025 and 20.04.2026, both of which have already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court; E. Call for the entire records relating to issuance of the impugned fresh tender, including note-sheets, approval records, decision-making file, technical specifications, comparison with the earlier tender, and reasons for re- tendering the same 753 Solar Home Light Systems; F. Direct the Respondents to decide the Petitioner's representation/ pre-bid objection dated..2026 by a reasoned order before taking any further final step pursuant to the impugned tender; G. Grant any other relief/order/direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.2/CREDA had floated Tender No. 155945 dated 10.07.2024 for supply, installation and commissioning of Solar Home Lighting Systems of 300 Wp capacity under the PM-JANMAN Scheme. The petitioner participated in the 5 tender process and was awarded the work. According to the petitioner, after submission and approval of the requisite sample system and technical documents by CREDA, it commenced execution of the work in accordance with the tender conditions. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties regarding the specifications of the systems supplied by the petitioner, particularly concerning the alleged deviation in the 68-cell/72-cell solar module configuration and I- section/C-channel mounting structure. Based on such allegations, CREDA initially passed an order dated 05.05.2025 blacklisting the petitioner, which came to be quashed by this Court in WPC No. 2677 of 2025 vide order dated 03.12.2025, while leaving the contractual disputes to be resolved before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, CREDA again passed a fresh order dated 20.04.2026 blacklisting the petitioner and, on the same date, cancelled the work order relating to 753 unexecuted Solar Home Lighting Systems. The petitioner questioned the said orders in WPC No. 2310 of 2026, wherein this Court, by order dated 08.05.2026, set aside the fresh blacklisting order but relegated the petitioner to avail the contractual dispute resolution mechanism with regard to the cancellation of the work order. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, it has already invoked the contractual dispute resolution mechanism by issuing an arbitration notice challenging the cancellation of the aforesaid 753 systems. During the pendency of the said contractual proceedings, respondent-CREDA issued the impugned NIT Ref. No. 2708/CREDA/SPVHLS/2026-27 dated 6 08.06.2026 and E-Bid Document No. 192875/CREDA/SPVHLS/2026- 27 dated 09.06.2026 inviting fresh bids for supply, installation and commissioning of the very same 753 Solar Photovoltaic Home Lighting Systems. According to the petitioner, the impugned re-tender is arbitrary and amounts to a colourable exercise of power, as it seeks to create third-party rights over the subject matter of the pending contractual dispute, thereby rendering the petitioner's contractual remedy illusory. It is further pleaded that the earlier action against the petitioner was founded upon alleged deficiencies relating to the 72- cell module configuration and C-channel mounting structure, whereas the impugned tender does not expressly prescribe those very requirements. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashment of the impugned tender, or in the alternative, a restraint against its finalisation pending adjudication of the contractual dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned tender has been floated for the very same 753 Solar Home Lighting Systems, which were earlier allotted to the petitioner and whose work order came to be cancelled by respondent-CREDA. It is contended that although this Court, while deciding WPC No. 2310 of 2026, relegated the petitioner to avail the contractual dispute resolution mechanism in respect of the cancellation of the work order, the petitioner has already invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice invoking arbitration. According to him, during the pendency of the said contractual proceedings, the respondents could not have proceeded to issue a fresh tender in respect of the same work, as 7 such action would create irreversible third-party rights and virtually render the contractual remedy available to the petitioner nugatory and illusory. 7. It is further argued that the impugned action is arbitrary, unfair and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would contend that the earlier cancellation and blacklisting were substantially founded on the alleged deviation regarding the 72-cell module configuration and C-channel mounting structure; however, the impugned tender does not prescribe those very requirements, thereby demonstrating a self-contradictory approach on the part of the respondents. It is also submitted that both the blacklisting orders passed against the petitioner have already been quashed by this Court and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as a defaulting or disqualified contractor. It is thus prayed that the impugned tender, to the extent it pertains to the aforesaid 753 systems, deserves to be quashed, or in the alternative, the respondents be restrained from finalising the tender till the contractual dispute is adjudicated. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent-CREDA would oppose the writ petition and submit that the dispute raised by the petitioner essentially emanates from the cancellation of a contractual work order and, therefore, is purely contractual in nature. It is contended that this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, has already relegated the petitioner to avail the contractual dispute resolution mechanism insofar as the cancellation of the work order is concerned, and accordingly the 8 petitioner has already invoked arbitration. Once the contractual remedy has been invoked, the petitioner cannot seek to indirectly challenge the consequences of such cancellation by questioning a subsequent and independent tender process in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is further submitted that the respondents, being instrumentalities of the State, are duty-bound to ensure timely implementation of the PM- JANMAN Scheme and supply of the Solar Home Lighting Systems for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries. The issuance of a fresh tender is stated to be an administrative and commercial decision taken in public interest after cancellation of the earlier work order, and the petitioner has no vested or enforceable right to insist that the work should remain unallotted pending adjudication of its contractual claims. It is argued that no mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory provision has been demonstrated in the decision-making process warranting interference in judicial review. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the entire records of the case with utmost circumspection. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the principal challenge in the present writ petition is directed against the fresh Notice Inviting Tender dated 08.06.2026 and the E-Bid Document 9 dated 09.06.2026 issued by respondent-CREDA for supply, installation and commissioning of 753 Solar Photovoltaic Home Lighting Systems. The petitioner's grievance is that the fresh tender pertains to the very same 753 systems whose work order had earlier been cancelled and that, since the petitioner has already invoked the contractual dispute resolution mechanism pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings, the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the re-tendering process until the contractual dispute is adjudicated. 12. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the cancellation of the work order dated 20.04.2026 was specifically left open by this Court to be questioned before the appropriate contractual forum while deciding WPC No.2310 of 2026. Admittedly, the petitioner has already invoked the arbitration clause in terms of the contract. Therefore, the legality and consequences of the cancellation of the work order, together with the rights and obligations flowing therefrom, are matters which are already sub judice before the forum agreed upon by the parties under the contract. The present writ petition cannot be permitted to become an indirect means of adjudicating or protecting contractual rights which are required to be determined in the arbitral proceedings. 13. It is well settled that judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts or tenders is concerned with the decision-making process and not with the merits of the commercial decision itself. Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, irrational, intended to favour a particular bidder, or in violation of statutory provisions, 10 constitutional courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in matters involving commercial wisdom of the employer. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions in contractual matters and judicial restraint is the governing principle. 14. The aforesaid principle has consistently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, wherein it was held that interference in tender matters is warranted only where the decision is actuated by mala fides or arbitrariness to the extent that no responsible authority acting reasonably could have arrived at such decision, and where overwhelming public interest requires judicial intervention. Similarly, in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, it has been held that fixation of tender conditions and decisions relating to award of contracts essentially lie within the domain of the employer and the scope of judicial review remains extremely limited. 15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is unable to find any infirmity in the decision-making process adopted by respondent-CREDA in issuing the impugned tender. The mere fact that the fresh tender relates to the same quantity of systems whose work order had earlier been cancelled does not, by itself, establish arbitrariness or mala fides. Once the earlier work order stood cancelled, respondent-CREDA, being an implementing agency entrusted with execution of a public welfare scheme, cannot be compelled to indefinitely withhold procurement merely because the 11 erstwhile contractor has chosen to invoke arbitration. Public projects cannot remain suspended until conclusion of arbitral proceedings, which may consume considerable time. 16. The submission of the petitioner that finalisation of the impugned tender would render the arbitral proceedings infructuous also does not merit acceptance. The scope of arbitration would continue to remain intact for adjudication of the legality of cancellation of the work order and the consequential contractual reliefs, including such reliefs as may be permissible in law. The possibility that the nature of relief ultimately available to the petitioner may undergo a change owing to subsequent events cannot furnish a ground for restraining the employer from proceeding with a fresh procurement undertaken in public interest. 17. Equally untenable is the submission founded upon the quashing of the earlier blacklisting orders. It is true that the blacklisting orders passed against the petitioner were set aside by this Court. However, the present tender has not been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has been declared ineligible or has been excluded from participation by treating it as a blacklisted contractor. The controversy in the present case relates to the issuance of a fresh tender after cancellation of the earlier work order, which constitutes a distinct cause of action. The quashing of the blacklisting orders, therefore, does not confer upon the petitioner any enforceable right to insist that the respondents must keep the work unexecuted until the contractual disputes are finally resolved. 12 18. The contention that the technical specifications contained in the fresh tender differ from the specifications which formed the basis of the earlier dispute likewise does not persuade this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Prescription or modification of technical specifications in a tender document falls within the realm of commercial and technical policy of the procuring authority. Unless such specifications are shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory or tailor-made to favour a particular bidder, the Court would not substitute its own opinion for that of the technical experts. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, wherein it has been emphasised that courts must exercise considerable restraint in matters involving technical evaluation and commercial decisions of the tendering authority. 19. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate violation of any statutory provision or infringement of any legal or fundamental right so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance projected by the petitioner essentially arises out of contractual rights flowing from the earlier agreement, the adjudication whereof has already been relegated to arbitration. The existence of such contractual disputes cannot, by itself, invalidate a subsequent tender issued by the employer for execution of public work. 13 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular (supra), Jagdish Mandal (supra), Michigan Rubber (supra), Afcons Infrastructure (supra) and Silppi Constructions (supra), this Court finds no arbitrariness, mala fides, favouritism or procedural illegality in the issuance of the impugned tender warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue its contractual remedies before the competent arbitral forum, where all questions relating to the legality of cancellation of the earlier work order and the consequential reliefs shall be decided on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. 21. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Object 1 Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved