1 2026:CGHC:2377-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 165 of 2026 1 - Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o Shri P.L. Mittal, Aged About 60 Years, Occupation “A” Class Contractor, R/o Main Road Korba, Police Station And Tahsil Korba District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Engineer Godawari Basin Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer, T.D.P.P. Water Resources Division, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Ram Shrimani Tiwari “A” Class Contractor, Vardhman Nagar, Quarter No. 103, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 :Mr. Shashank Thakur, 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 15-01-2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.20 18:16:19 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/Respondents No.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner by way of present petition under Artilcle 226 of the Constitution of India prays for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case from the respondents for its kind consideration of the Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the entire tender proceeding of NIT No.26/SAC/25-26, dated 25.11.2025 System Tender No.180278 (Annexure P-3) 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash disqualification of petitioner’s BID dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set - aside/quash the proceedings dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P/12), whereby the respondent no. 5 has been declared as L-1 contractor. 10.5 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the bid/tender by opening the financial bid of the petitioner. 10.6 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to direct 3 the respondents not to issue work order in respect of NIT No. 26/SAC/25-26, dated 25.11.2025 System Tender No. 180278 in favour of private respondent no. 5. 10.7 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. The facts of the case in brief as projected in the petition are that, the respondent No.3 has issued NIT on 25-11-2025 bearing NIT No. 26/SAC/25-26, System Tender No. 180278 for renovation work of main canal from R.D. 0.00 Km to 24.00 Km of Kosarteda Medium Irrigation Project in Block Bastar, District Bastar. The cost of the tender was 4083.10 Lakhs and the amount of earnest money was Rs.5 Lakhs. The time to complete the work was 30 months including the rainy season from the date of issuance of work order. The bid start date and time was 02-12-2025, 17:31 hours. The bid due date and time is 16-12-2025, 17:30 hours and bid open starting date and time was 17-12-2025, 11:30 hours. As per the condition of the NIT the copies of requisite documents was to be submitted through online mode and the tender shall be received through online only. The petitioner being Class A contractor, duly submitted his online tender form with relevant documents as required in Annexure III. The respondent No.5 was also participated in the said tender process. On 13-12-2025 at about 12:03 p.m. the respondent No.3 communicated that he is found disqualified 4 due to submission of incorrect supporting document of Annexure III and asked his explanation within two days from the communication. On 02- 01-2026 at 5:28 p.m. the petitioner submitted his explanation and deficiencies were explained, but without considering the explanation of the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the respondent No.3 informed that he was disqualified as he could not submit the proper explanation within time and there are discrepancies in the documents submitted by him that in some of the documents the memo number and date were not written and in the document No.6 certificate was not signed by Executive officer. On 02-01-2026 itself after declaring the petitioner disqualified the respondent authorities opened the financial bid and the respondent No.5 was declared L1 and tender has been awarded to him. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that immediately after receiving the communication from the respondent authorities he replied the communication and explained the deficiencies in the documents. The requisite documents were to be issued by the competent authorities and the petitioner could not ask them to issue necessary certificates in a particular manner, but the documents they have issued in the proper formate. In the document of Serial No.6, though there is no signature of Executive Officer, but the said certificate was issued by the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd and there is no person employed under the designation of Chief Executive Officer and thus, the said document was issued by the office of General Manager of SECL duly assigned by the competent authority. The certificate submitted by 5 the petitioner can be verified by the respondent authorities from the concerned department, yet his bid has been rejected. He would further submit that earlier also in the other tender dated 08-01-2025 the respondent department had rejected the bid of the petitioner on the same ground against which the petitioner preferred WPC No.5167/2025 (the correct number of the writ petition is WPC No.2613/2025, as per Annexure -P/9) before this Court and vide order dated 15-05-2025 this Court has directed the respondents to verify the certificates and thereafter take a decision with respect to NIT and thereafter the documents of the petitioner were verified and the tender of the petitioner was opened. Again the respondent authorities have raised objection in the same manner which is arbitrary and the same can be interfered by this Hon’ble Court. He would also submit that till date work order has not been issued in favour of respondent No.5. Therefore, relief as claimed by the petitioner may be granted to him. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner was well aware about the requisite documents for submission of his tender form, yet without having sufficient and proper documents he submitted his bid. He would also submit that the certificate for work order in hand was signed on behalf of Staff Officer (Civil) and not by the competent authority. There is no reference number or date in the documents of certificate for work done as on 15-03-2025 and also in the certificate for work done/work in hand issued by the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation Durg. 6 The petitioner has not submitted his explanation within time and he could submit his explanation only on 02-01-2026 at 5:21 p.m. and since the petitioner has not submitted the requisite documents in proper format he was not allowed to participate in the tender process and his bid was rejected. He would also submit that the petitioner was in habit to raise dispute which reflected from the order dated 15-05-2025 passed by this Court in WPC No.2613/2025 and further stated that once the petitioner came to know about the deficiencies and its consequences he ought to have removed it within time, but he did not do so. Therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected his bid and his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended in the writ petition. 7. In nutshell, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he was declared disqualified due to submission of invalid/incorrect supporting documents of Annexure III of work in hand Serial No.1, 5, 6 and 19 as per NIT. In the document of Serial No.1, 5 and 19, the memo number and date not written and in the document of Serial No.6 the certificate was not signed by Executive Officer. A communication was made to the petitioner on 31-12-2025 at 12:03 p.m. (Annexure-P/7) and explanation in this regard was called within two days failing which the process shall be carried forward presuming that the petitioner have nothing to say in the matter. 8. On 02-01-2026 at about 5:21 p.m. the petitioner was informed that:- 7 “This is to inform you that your organization has been rejected during Part-I (Envelop B) evaluation (i.e. Techno-commercial evaluation) by the tender owner for Tender No.180278 of Water Resources Department (WRD) department on Jan 2, 2026 5:21:15 PM due to Disqualified due to submission of Invalid/Incorrect supporting Documents of Annexure III of Work in hand Sr. no. 01, 05, 06,& 19 as per NIT. (Sr. no. 01, 05,& 19 Memo no. & date not written and sr. no. 06 Certificate not sign by Executive Officer). Hence you will not be allowed to participate in price bid opening for this tender. For further clarifications pleased contact the tender owner for this case. Assuring you, the best of our services at all times.” 9. The requirement of submission of necessary documents as per Annexure III of the tender which reflects from clause 3.4 of the Information and Instructions which requires details of balance works in hand in format given in Annexure III. It is necessary to reproduce Annexure III at preset:- “ANNEXURE III (Refer para 3.4 of the Information & Instruction for Tender) Details of work in hand with Tenderer at the time of submission of this tender DETAILS OF WORKS IN HAND SHOULD BE GIVEN IN FOLLOWING PROFORMA S. No Name of Division Name of Work Ag. No. & Date Amount of Contact Amount Paid up to last running bill at the time of submission of tender Balance amount of work in hand at the time of submission of tender Ref. of Certificate attached as Page No. Value of works for which tenderer is lowest bidder (L1) and tender is under consideration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total ........... ........... ........... 8 List of contracts held by the Contractors in water Resources Department /P.W.D. and all other Department at time of submission of this tender. Any details/documents will not be entertained after submission of tender. Signature of Tenderer (Seal) Note:- 1. The above details should be supported by the relevant documents. Certificate of work executed and work in hand submitted by the bidder shall be certified by the officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer 2. Any agreemented works which have not been started due to any reason shall be considered in the category of work in hand No Change 3. participationg tenderer shall have to furnish the details of being lowest bidder in other tenders under consideration 4. Any tenderer, if participates in more than one tender at any given point of time, his price bid shall be opened one by one. If he is found lowest bidder (L1) in opening of first tender, his tendered amount shall be taken for consideration for evaluation of his bid capacity for the next tender to be opened in which he has participated. If the bid capacity is found less than the required bid amount his price bid for this tender shall not be opened. Moreover such tenderer shall further be ineligible for tenders in which he has participated in case his bid capacity is found short of required bid amount of the tender under consideration. 5. It is made clear that the amount of work executed is acceptable upto the last running bill recorded in the measurement book and paid. The work executed after the last paid running bill which is though recorded in measurement book but not paid to the contractor will be consider in the category of work in hand. 6. The bidder should also mention details of sublet works, which he is performing. Sublet works assigned to the bidder should be counted as work in hand of the bidder. Also, if the bidder has sublet his work to other contractor before submission of tender, duly sanctioned by competent authority such work deducted from work in hand (vide Govt. of C.G, W,R,D. Raipur’s Letter No. 1664/F-7-7/S-2/31/2001, Nava Raipur Dtd. 09/04/2025)” 10. The authorities while scrutiny of the documents submitted along with the tender found certain discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioner under Annexure III. A communication was made to the petitioner on 31-12-2025 that the document of Annexure III annexed at Serial No.1, 5 and 19 does not bears with memo number and dated and document of Serial No.6 the said certificate was not signed by the Executive Officer. From perusal of the documents of Annexure III annexed with the tender, it transpires that the documents of Serial No.1, 9 5 and 19 does not bear with the memo/dispatch number and date and document No.6 does not bears the signature of Executive Engineer. It can be considered that there was no post of Executive Officer in the SECL, but the document should have been signed at least by the officer of equal rank, however, in the present case, the said document which has been annexed at page No.195 of the petition appears to be signed by someone for Staff Officer (Civil). 11. When the petitioner was well aware about the requisite documents as his earlier writ petition has been decided on 15-05-2025 in WPC No.2613/2025 (Annexure-P/9) involved the similar dispute, he must have vigilant in subsequent process of tender and should have not repeated the same deficiencies in the documents. It is settled law that if anything is to be done in a particular manner it has to be done provided in it and not otherwise as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177). 12. In the present case, the petitioner did not provide correct documents for participating in the tender process and has not rectified the deficiency within the time as granted by the authorities concerned. The deficiency could not be explained within time given by the authorities and therefore, his bid has been rejected. 13. In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. 1 (2022) 6 SCC 127 10 Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 11 14. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024, decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the decisions rendered in various other celebrated judgments, observed as under: “21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the government/ its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner. 22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial intervention in Government Contracts. 23. In Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and Others2, this Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts held: - “18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process”. In this connection reference may be made to the case 2(1993) 1 SCC 445 12 of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was said that: (p. 144a) “The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.” By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly examine whether “decision-making process” was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India3, this Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action. “94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several 3(1994) 6 SCC 651 13 tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others4, as under: - “53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution.” 26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others5, this Court after discussing number of judgments laid down two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters. They are: - “22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;” 4(2004) 3 SCC 553 5 (2007) 14 SCC 517 14 (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others6, while observing that the government contracts granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: - “50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in government contracts, if granted by the government bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest.” 28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsels for the Respondents relying upon the observations made in Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others7, that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. However, in the said judgment also it is observed that if the employer has exercised the inherent authority to deviate from the essential term, such deviation has to be made applicable to all the 6 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574 7 (2016) 8 SCC 622 15 bidders and potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as under:- “47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached” as held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216]. 48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The 16 lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.” 15. It is not a case where some favoritism is shown towards any particular bidder by the respondent authorities. If the authorities had found that there was some error in the documents submitted by the intending bidders which later came to their knowledge, then the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the bid of such bidder particularly when he failed to explain the said discrepancy within time. Earlier also the petitioner raised similar dispute in WPC No.2613/2025 decided by this Court on 15-05-2025, then he must have vigilant to submit correct documents along with his tender form, yet he again raised similar issue and submitted incorrect documents along with tender form. Therefore, in rejecting the bid of the petitioner by respondent authorities were justified. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any scope for interference in the petition and accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil