1 CGHC010252412026 2026:CGHC:27634-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 601 of 2026 1 - 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 (Res. No. 2) ... Applicant versus 1 - M/s Charanpaaduka Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through its Ar, Vaibhav Gupta, Situated At 11/371, First Floor, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi 110018 (Petitioner) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Forest And Climate Change Department, Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh (Res. No. 1) ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. Prem Garg, Advocate (through virtual mode) and Ms. Dyna Bajrang, Advocate. For Non-applicant No.2 : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06-07-2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.07.09 10:54:27 +0530 2 1. The present application for modification of the order dated 29.06.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No. 3140/2026 has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order dated 29.06.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3140/2026 to the extent that the quashment of additional terms and conditions (ATC) be recalled and the order may be modified, in the interest of justice.” 2. For convenience the status of the parties are being shown as per their status in the writ petition. 3. The facts in brief, is that the applicant was respondent No.2 in WPC No.3140/2026 filed by the present non-applicant No.1. The writ petitioner filed the WPC No.3140/2026 challenging the Bid Document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026 and for quashing of the same along with its Additional Terms and Conditions. The said writ petition is allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2026 and the impugned Bid Document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026, along with the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC), is quashed and the respondents were given liberty 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. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 of the writ petition filed the present application 3 for modification of the order dated 29.06.2026 to the extent that the quashment of Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) may be recalled. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in paragraph No. 11 of the order dated 29.06.2026, the subject NIT along with the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) have been quashed on the ground of wrong selection of category in GEM portal the NIT floated by respondent No.2 is defective and also that the respondent No.2 undertakes to invite fresh NIT. He further submits that due to quashing of the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) the applicant would be facing difficulties in floating fresh NIT. The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the NIT dated 04.06.2026 on the ground of wrong selection of category in GEM portal of the material for which the NIT was issued. Therefore, the impugned order may be modified to the extent of recalling of quashment part of the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) in paragraph No. 11 of the order dated 29.06.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.3140/2026. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (Non-applicant No.1 herein) opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the entire terms and conditions of the NIT along with the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) was disproportionate with the requirement of the work as well as the earlier tender condition. Cost of the tender was disproportionately enhanced from the 4 earlier tender which was for the same work. He would also submit that the respondent No.2 (Applicant herein) has been already provided liberty to issue fresh NIT with such terms and conditions as they may deem fit, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and therefore, there is no need to modify the impugned order and the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, therefore, the application for modification is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the application as well as the writ petition. 7. While passing the order dated 29.06.2026 we have observed in paragraph No. 10 and 11 that:- “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 5 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 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.” 8. From perusal of paragraph No.1 11 of the order dated 29.06.2026 it clearly reveals that there is liberty granted in favour of the applicant that they may 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 6 governing principles of public procurement. In view of such liberty the applicant has every liberty to fix the terms and conditions of the NIT as they may deem fit in accordance the applicable statutory provisions and there is no need to modify the said order as liberty has already been granted to the applicant. 9. Further, in paragraph No.10 of the order dated 29.06.2026 we have already considered the issue involved in the writ petition and the NIT and after considering the issue involved in the case, this Court has considered the NIT as well as the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) and the aforesaid liberty has been granted in favour of the applicant. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the terms and conditions of the NIT and Additional Terms and Conditions, we do not find any scope for interference in the application filed by the applicant for modification of the order dated 29.06.2026. Accordingly, the present application for modification of the order dated 29.06.2026 passed in WPC No.3140/2026 is hereby rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil