1 CGHC010282522026 2026:CGHC:32193-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(C) No.3908 of 2026 Minesh Charan S/o Shri Kalicharan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Anugrah Villa, In Front Of Disciples Church, Near FCI. Chowk, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Health And Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Directorate Of Medical Education, Through Its Director, Swasthya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Dean, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Joint Director And Medical Superintendent, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.29 11:00:41 +0530 2 5 - M/s. Shree Sai Services Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory/Representative, Shri Himanshu Dev Sahani, Having Its Office At Shop No.435, Golden Trade Centre, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/Respondents. 2. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the entire records pertaining to Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6129623 dated 10/04/2025, including the technical bid, financial bid, eligibility documents. evaluation proceedings and all records relating to the award of the Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services Contract in favour of Respondent No. 05, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent [2:24 pm, 28/7/2026] S. Neelima Vishnu Priya: Authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 21/01/2026, 11/02/2026 3 and 21/04/2026. by passing a reasoned and speaking order after duly verifying the eligibility documents submitted by Respondent No.05 during the tender process, within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, for the furtherance of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to conduct an independent and impartial enquiry into the eligibility of Respondent No. 05, with reference to the documents submitted by it during the tender process, particularly the financial eligibility and Annual Dietary Turnover, and to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document, if any discrepancy, suppression or misrepresentation is found, for the furtherance of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the allotment of the Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services Contract made in favour of Respondent No. 05, if upon verification it is found that the mandatory eligibility conditions of the tender were not fulfilled or that the allotment was obtained on the basis of incorrect, false or misleading information, for the furtherance of justice. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 03 to blacklist the Respondent No.05 in lieu with Clause i(1) of the Misc. Terms & Conditions of the NIT dated 10/04/2025, in the interest of justice. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent Authorities 4 issued a Notice Inviting Tender bearing Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6129623 dated 10.04.2025 for award of the Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services tender at CIMS, Bilaspur. The tender was ultimately awarded in favour of Respondent No.5, namely M/s. Shree Sai Services Pvt. Ltd. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.5 secured the award of the tender by submitting false and forged documents pertaining to its annual dietary turnover for the financial year 2025-26 and that the Respondent Authorities awarded the tender without properly verifying the documents and the mandatory eligibility conditions prescribed in the tender document. According to the Petitioner, Clause I(1) of the Miscellaneous Terms and Conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender specifically provides that any bidder submitting false, forged or fabricated documents or concealing material facts with an intent to secure the bid would be liable for forfeiture of the bid security deposit, blacklisting for a period of not less than two years or indefinitely, besides such legal action as may be warranted depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner further claims to have submitted representations dated 21.01.2026, 11.02.2026 and 21.04.2026 before the competent authorities requesting them to verify the eligibility documents submitted by Respondent No.5, examine the alleged discrepancies pointed out therein and initiate action in 5 accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that despite the said representations, no action has been taken by the Respondent Authorities, compelling him to file the present Writ Petition. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is an employee of M/s. Ch. Philip Caterers and has approached this Court seeking enforcement of transparency and fairness in the award of public contracts relating to Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services at CIMS, Bilaspur. According to the Petitioner, upon obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the concerned authorities, including the communication issued by AIIMS, Raipur dated 14.07.2025, he came across alleged discrepancies in the annual dietary turnover and other financial particulars relied upon by Respondent No.5 during the tender process. It is contended that such discrepancies required verification by the Tender Inviting Authority, particularly in view of the conditions contained in the tender document. The Petitioner claims that despite submitting repeated representations dated 21.01.2026, 11.02.2026 and 21.04.2026 and thereafter seeking further information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 07.05.2026, no enquiry or reasoned decision has been undertaken by the Respondent Authorities. It is, therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner that the continuation of the contract 6 in favour of Respondent No.5 without verification of the alleged discrepancies is arbitrary and contrary to the principles governing public procurement. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent Authorities have acted arbitrarily and illegally in awarding and permitting continuation of the Healthcare Kitchen and Dietary Services contract in favour of Respondent No.5 without objectively examining the serious allegations regarding its eligibility, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Petitioner had placed before the Respondent Authorities documentary material obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 disclosing prima facie discrepancies in the annual dietary turnover and other financial particulars of Respondent No.5, which warranted verification, however, despite receipt of such material, the Respondent Authorities failed to conduct any enquiry or verification and permitted continuation of the contract without examining whether the successful bidder fulfilled the mandatory eligibility conditions prescribed under the tender document. It is contended that when allegations relating to fulfillment of mandatory eligibility conditions are brought to the notice of the Tender Inviting Authority along with supporting documentary material, the authority is required to objectively examine the same and failure to do so renders the decision-making 7 process arbitrary and amenable to judicial review. It is further submitted that despite repeated representations made by the Petitioner requesting verification of the documents submitted by Respondent No.5 and appropriate action in accordance with the tender conditions, no enquiry has been conducted nor any reasoned decision has been taken by the Respondent Authorities. It is argued that such failure demonstrates non-application of mind and failure to ensure compliance with the mandatory eligibility conditions before entrusting Respondent No.5 with an essential public service relating to patient dietary management at CIMS, Bilaspur. Referring to Clause I(1) of the Miscellaneous Terms and Conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 10.04.2025, learned Counsel further submits that the tender itself provides for forfeiture of bid security, blacklisting and other legal consequences in case of submission of false, forged or fabricated documents or concealment of material facts, but the Respondent Authorities have failed to take appropriate action despite repeated requests. It is further contended that if the allegations regarding the eligibility of Respondent No.5 are found to be correct upon verification, the very foundation of the award of tender would stand vitiated. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the Respondent Authorities to examine the Petitioner's grievance, verify the eligibility documents submitted by Respondent No.5 and 8 take action in accordance with law. 6. Contrarily, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner and supported the action of the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted that the tender process was conducted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender and the applicable procedure and that Respondent No.5 was awarded the contract only after being found eligible under the prescribed conditions. It is contended that the issues sought to be raised in the present Writ Petition are not new and arise out of the very same tender process which had earlier been challenged by M/s. Ch. Philip Caterers in WPC No.3017 of 2025. It is submitted that this Court, by judgment dated 24.07.2025, declined to interfere with the tender process and dismissed the said Writ Petition and the said judgment has further attained finality as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 12.09.2025 passed in SLP (C) No.24839 of 2025 (M/s. Ch. Philip Caterers v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), also declined to interfere and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. He further submits that the present Petitioner is an employee of M/s. Ch. Philip Caterers and that, after having failed before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the very same issues concerning the eligibility of Respondent No.5 are now sought to be reagitated indirectly by first submitting representations before the 9 Respondent Authorities and thereafter filing the present Writ Petition. Referring to paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 24.07.2025 passed in WPC No.3017 of 2025, it is submitted that this Court has already considered the very issues now sought to be raised by holding, inter alia, that there was no requirement under the tender conditions to submit a living Gumasta licence along with the technical bid or to furnish an FSSAI licence issued specifically for the State of Chhattisgarh, the FSSAI licence issued by the Government of Maharashtra submitted by Respondent No.5 was valid, the MSME Certificate bearing NIC Code No.56292 rightly entitled Respondent No.5 to the marks awarded by the Tender Evaluation Committee and in view of the corrigendum relating to annual dietary turnover, Respondent No.5 had duly fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Writ Petition is nothing but an attempt to reopen issues which already stand concluded and as such, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record with due care. 8. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. The 10 principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent Authorities have failed to verify the eligibility documents submitted by Respondent No.5 and to take action on the representations submitted by him. However, it is not in dispute that the controversy relating to the very same tender process had earlier been raised by M/s. Ch. Philip Caterers before this Court in WPC No.3017 of 2025, wherein this Court, by judgment dated 24.07.2025, declined to interfere and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is also not in dispute that the said judgment was carried in challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.24839 of 2025, which also came to be dismissed on 12.09.2025. The judgment of this Court has thus attained finality. The issues now sought to be raised in the present Writ Petition substantially arise out of the very same tender process and pertain to the eligibility of Respondent No.5, which had already fallen for consideration in the earlier round of litigation. Merely because the Petitioner has subsequently submitted representations before the Respondent Authorities and relies upon information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the same cannot furnish a fresh cause to reopen issues which already stand concluded. No subsequent event or independent material of such nature has been brought on record so as to warrant a fresh examination of the controversy. In the considered opinion of this Court, permitting such an exercise would amount to indirectly 11 reopening and reagitating issues arising out of the very same tender process, which have already attained finality, through the present Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, an employee of M/s. Ch. Philip Caterers, which is impermissible in law. We, therefore, find no ground warranting interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Priya