1 CGHC010215452026 2026:CGHC:29207-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3201 of 2026 Avnish Pandey S/o Bhairo Prasad Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Sadakpara, Khoksara, Janjgir, Distt Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector (Mining Branch) District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar Janjgir Champa District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Mining Officer District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Prakhar Bhaskar (Lease Holder) Village Hadha, Tehsil Pamgarh, Distt Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.14 10:54:33 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.07.2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent/State. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/State that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WPC No. 3180/2026 along with bunch of petitions (Anand Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 30.06.2026, observing as follows : “25. It is not in dispute that this Court, while deciding W.P.(C) No.1970 of 2026 vide order dated 15.05.2026, had quashed the Notice Inviting Tender dated 30.03.2026 pertaining to Village Hathnewara on the ground that there was no finalized and approved District Survey Report (DSR). However, the factual matrix of the present batch of writ petitions is clearly distinguishable. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner had approached this Court immediately after issuance of the impugned Notice Inviting Tender and before the tender process had substantially progressed. In contrast, in the present batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court only after the judgment dated 15.05.2026 was rendered in W.P.(C) No. 1970 of 2026, despite the impugned Notices Inviting Tender having been issued much earlier, namely, 15.10.2025 in W.P.(C) Nos.3180/2026 and 3186/2026, 22.10.2025 in W.P.(C) Nos.3182/2026, 3185/2026 and 3225/2026, 30.10.2025 in W.P. (C) 3 Nos.3200/2026, 3226/2026 and 3237/2026, 04.11.2025 in W.P.(C) Nos.3210/2026, 3216/2026 and 3217/2026, and 30.03.2026 in W.P.(C) No.3243/2026. Thus, the petitioners permitted the respective tender processes to continue and approached this Court only belatedly, by which time the auction process had substantially progressed and the successful bidders had already been declared. Such unexplained delay and laches clearly distinguish the present cases from W.P. (C) No.1970 of 2026 and disentitle the petitioners from claiming discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. The entire edifice of the petitioners' case rests upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1970 of 2026. However, as noticed hereinabove, the factual matrix of the present batch of writ petitions is altogether different. In the said writ petition, the challenge was laid immediately after issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender and before the tender process had substantially progressed. In the present cases, despite the impugned Notices Inviting Tender having been issued much earlier, the petitioners chose not to assail the same at the relevant point of time and approached this Court only after the order dated 15.05.2026 was passed in W.P.(C) No. 1970 of 2026. By that time, the respective tender processes had substantially progressed and valuable rights had accrued in favour of the successful bidders. Merely because relief was granted in W.P.(C) No.1970 of 2026 would not ipso facto entitle the petitioners to claim similar relief, particularly when they have approached 4 this Court belatedly and under an entirely different factual scenario. 27. It is also an admitted position that the petitioners themselves participated in the respective tender processes pursuant to the impugned Notices Inviting Tender without raising any objection to the tender conditions or the process at the relevant point of time. Having voluntarily participated in the auction proceedings, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to turn around and challenge the very tender process after declaration of the successful bidders merely because the outcome has not been favourable to them. Such conduct attracts the well-settled principles of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel and disentitles the petitioners from invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. It is also not disputed that the reverse auction process has already culminated, the successful bidders (L-1) have been declared in all the respective tenders and consequential proceedings have substantially progressed. Interference at this advanced stage would unsettle concluded contractual rights and seriously prejudice public interest. 29. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The impugned Notices Inviting Tender in the present batch were issued on 15.10.2025, 22.10.2025, 30.10.2025 and 04.11.2025, whereas the petitioners approached this Court only in the year 2026 after considerable delay, by which time the tender process had 5 substantially progressed and successful bidders had already been declared. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for such inordinate delay. The unexplained delay and laches furnish an additional ground for declining interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. Consequently, finding no merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, all the writ petitions, namely W.P.(C) Nos.3180/2026, 3182/2026, 3185/2026, 3186/2026, 3200/2026, 3210/2026, 3216/2026, 3217/2026, 3225/2026, 3226/2026, 3237/2026 and 3243/2026, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 31. Since all these matters were listed in default and have been finally heard and decided on merits by this common order, the defects as pointed out by the Registry in the respective writ petitions, stand waived off.” He further submits that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPC No. 3180/2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPC No. 3180/2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No. 3180/2026. 6 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 30.06.2026 passed in WPC No. 3180/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet