CGHC010272442026 2026:CGHC:31876-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3853 of 2026 Kanhaiyalal Agrawal S/o Kailash Kumar Agrawal Aged About 61 Years Director Of M/s Natural Fuels, And Mineral Industry Flat No. Block- C, Tatibandh, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Power Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg New Delhi-110001. 2 - Union Of India Through The Secretary,ministry, Of Agriculture, And Farmers, Welfare Room No. 115, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi, - 110001. 3 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Commerce And Industry, Vanijya Bhawan , 16, Akbar Road New Delhi, 1100011. 4 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road New Delhi, -110003. 5 - The Mission Director Samarth Mission (National Mission On Use Of Biomass In Thermal Power Plants, ) E-3, Main Market Rd, Ecotech-Ii Udyog Vihar Grater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201306. 6 - N T P C Limited Through Its Chairman And Managing Director (C M D ) N T P C Bhawan, S C O P E Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi, -110003. 7 - The Regional Executive Director N T P C Limited (Western Region IIHeadquarters) Raipur C.G. 8 - A G M ( C P G -1) N T P C Limited Unified Shared Service Service Centre Central Purchase Group-1, Western Region -Ii Headquarter, Plot No. 8, Sector -24 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur C.G. Pin Code, 492018, India 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy GA Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.28 18:15:53 +0530 Wpc 3853 of 2026 2 For Union of India : Smt Annapurna Tiwari, Sr CGC and Shri Abhishek Banjare, CGC For Respondents- 6, 7 and 8 : Shri Prafull N Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.07.2026 Heard Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Soumya Rai, learned Dy GA appearing for the State, Smt Annapurna Tiwari, learned Sr Central Government counsel and Shri Abhishek Banjare, learned Central Government counsel for the Union of India, Shri Prafull N Bharat, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for respondents No.6, 7 and 8. 1. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers: “I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, quashing and setting aside the impugned/challenged "Invitation for Bids (IFB) for Procurement of Biomass Pellets on FOR Power Station Basis for NTPC Sipat, Korba, Mouda, North Karanpura, Darlipali, Lara and Gadarwara Plants (Lot-1) (Domestic Competitive Bidding), Bid Document No. CPG-1/LOT-1/2026", issued by NTPC Limited (a Government of India Enterprise), in relation to Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, for the supply, loading, transportation, and delivery of agro- residue-based biomass pellets to the aforesaid NTPC power stations etc. (as per mentioned clause 3.0 brief scope of work) (Annexure P/6 & P/7), to the extent that it arbitrarily and illegally reduces the biomass co-firing quantity below the legally prescribed mandatory level of 5-7%, contrary to the national interest and in violation of the Notifications/Circulars issued by the Ministry of Power, Government of India. Wpc 3853 of 2026 3 II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to strictly comply with the Comprehensive Policy dated 07.11.2025 and the Revised Policy dated 08.10.2021 by restoring the mandatory minimum biomass co-firing requirement in the aforesaid procurement tenders. III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 to maintain the minimum benchmark price for the procurement of biomass co-firing pellets in the aforesaid BID DOCUMENT/TENDER in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Notification/Circular dated 08.11.2023 issued by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, New Delhi (Annexure P/2), after taking into consideration the rate of inflation between 08.11.2023 and the opening date of the Bid under challenge. IV. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent State to provide that the place of arbitration shall be within the local area of the State of Chhattisgarh or/and Madhya Pradesh, such as Bilaspur or Raipur city, and that the jurisdiction of the competent courts shall also remain within the States of Chhattisgarh and/or Madhya Pradesh. V. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing that the erring officers be proceeded against and punished in accordance with law and the rules framed thereunder. VI. That, furthermore, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned authorities to pay exemplary compensation to the Petitioner for the hardship and losses suffered by him. VII. Any other relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Invitation for Bids (IFB) for procurement of Biomass Pellets. Wpc 3853 of 2026 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned Invitation for Bids (IFB) has been issued in violation of the policy decisions and notifications issued by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, inasmuch as it allegedly reduces the mandatory biomass co-firing requirement below the prescribed level and thereby defeats the very object of the policy framed for promotion of biomass utilization. It is further contended that the tender conditions are arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the public interest, besides being detrimental to the interests of the bidders engaged in the supply of biomass pellets. It is also submitted that the benchmark procurement price has not been fixed in accordance with the relevant policy guidelines and that certain conditions relating to arbitration and jurisdiction are also arbitrary. On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted that the impugned tender conditions deserve to be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to bring the tender in conformity with the applicable policy and guidelines. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, would submit that the present writ petition is wholly premature as the impugned tender process is still at its initial stage and has not culminated in the award of any contract. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself is participating in the tender process and, therefore, cannot maintain the present challenge at this stage. He would also submit that the impugned Invitation for Bids pertains only to the first phase of procurement and the quantity as well as the rates in the subsequent phases may vary depending upon the operational requirements and prevailing market conditions. It is Wpc 3853 of 2026 5 thus argued that no enforceable or accrued right of the petitioner has been infringed so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner has sought a multitude of reliefs in the present writ petition, ranging from challenge to the tender conditions, directions regarding implementation of the policy relating to biomass co- firing, fixation of benchmark prices, determination of the place of arbitration, initiation of action against the officers concerned and grant of compensation. The reliefs claimed are not only diverse in nature but are also intermingled, without there being a specific and distinct challenge confined to any particular tender condition. Such omnibus prayers, seeking adjudication of multiple independent issues in one writ petition, cannot appropriately be examined in the present proceedings, particularly when the challenge is directed against a tender process which is still underway. 7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner himself is participating in the tender process and the last date for opening of the bids is 30.07.2026. The respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have further submitted that the impugned Invitation for Bids pertains only to the first phase of the procurement process and that subsequent phases may involve different quantities and prices Wpc 3853 of 2026 6 depending upon the requirement. Thus, the tender process has not attained finality, and no prejudice capable of judicial review has yet crystallized. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is premature and does not warrant interference at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law, if any cause of action survives after the tender process is finalized. 10. Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the annexures to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining the attested true copy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma