1 2026:CGHC:17233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1577 of 2020 1 - Kansal Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Mr. Manish Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years, S/o Mr. Jai Prakash Agrawal, R/o 1-B, Megna Block, Merlin, Jaishree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh (Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director North-West Commercial Complex, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager, Equipment, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited North-West Commercial Complex, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 :- Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State :- Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.04.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 09.05.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby directions have been issued to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner, as well as the consequential complaint (Annexure P/2) preferred before Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the distribution of medical supplies within the State of Chhattisgarh. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Respondent No. 2 floated a short-term tender dated 07.04.2020 for procurement of 75,000 rapid antibody test kits. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and was declared as an L-2 bidder. Admittedly, no Letter of Intent (LOI) or Purchase Order (PO) was issued in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, due to certain developments including predatory pricing by the L-1 bidder and changes in government policies, the tender itself came to be cancelled on 12.04.2020. Thereafter, a 3 fresh tender was floated. It is the case of the petitioner that despite there being no concluded contract, Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice alleging non-performance and thereafter passed the impugned order directing lodging of FIR against the petitioner, which resulted in filing of a complaint before the police authorities. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record of entire tender process which is subject matter of the present petition. 10.2 This the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the Impugned order dated 09.05.2020 (P1) passed by the Respondent Corporation and/or. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the complaint preferred by the officers of Respondent No.2 and 3 before the Respondent No.4 herein and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to refrain from taking any further action In compliance of the impugned orders dated 09.05.2020 (P1) and the complaint dated 11.05.2020 (P2). 4 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ...... 10.6. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1-3 to refrain from undertaking any form of coercive action against the Petitioner based upon the present cause of action. 10.7. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1-3 to adequately compensate the Petitioner for the loss of reputation and goodwill caused to the Petitioner owing to the impugned action...." ” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no privity of contract between the parties, as the petitioner was merely an L-2 bidder and was never awarded the contract. It is contended that in absence of any concluded contract, the question of breach does not arise. It is further submitted that even assuming a contractual dispute, the same would give rise to a civil liability and cannot be given a criminal colour. It is also argued that the petitioner had duly informed the respondents about the requirement of import license and possible delay, and thereafter the tender itself stood cancelled. Therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings is arbitrary, mala fide and an abuse of the process of law. 5 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel/respondents submit that the petitioner had participated in a time-sensitive procurement process during a public health emergency and had represented its capability to supply the kits. It is contended that failure to adhere to the representations made during the tender process has serious consequences and the authorities were justified in taking action. However, it is fairly submitted that the tender was cancelled and no purchase order was issued to the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 09.05.2020, it appears that the petitioner was an L-2 bidder in the Notice Inviting Tender issued for procurement of rapid diagnostic kits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The L-1 bidder, namely National Medicose, Bilaspur, was awarded the work for supply of the said kits. The impugned order proceeds on the allegation that both the L-1 and L-2 bidders did not participate seriously in the tender process, as a result of which the required kits could not be procured in time, and on such premise, directions were issued to lodge an FIR against them. 8. However, on a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner, being an L-2 bidder, was never awarded any contract for supply of the kits. The responsibility to supply the kits, if any, was solely upon the L-1 bidder, i.e., National Medicose, 6 Bilaspur. There is nothing on record to indicate that the L-1 bidder had declined to execute the work or that any obligation had been shifted upon the petitioner. In absence of any concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondents, no liability, either contractual or otherwise, can be fastened upon the petitioner for non-supply of the kits. 9. It is well settled that mere participation in a tender process does not create any enforceable obligation unless the bid is accepted and a contract is concluded. In the present case, admittedly no Letter of Intent or Purchase Order was issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of breach of any contractual obligation on the part of the petitioner does not arise. 10. Further, this Court finds that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner has committed any act which would constitute a criminal offence. No element of mens rea, fraudulent intention, or deliberate default is made out against the petitioner. The impugned action appears to proceed merely on presumptions without any supporting material. It is trite law that for directing registration of an FIR, there must exist prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. In the absence of such material, initiation of criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. 11. Even otherwise, if there was any lapse in the procurement process or failure on the part of the successful bidder, the same 7 could not have been mechanically attributed to the petitioner, who was only an unsuccessful bidder (L-2). The liability of the L-1 bidder cannot be shifted upon the petitioner in the absence of any legal basis. 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order directing initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner suffers from non- application of mind and is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.05.2020 as well as the consequential complaint are liable to be and are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha