1 2026:CGHC:19542-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2017 of 2026 Nitin Rajiv Sinha Son Of Late Shri Rajiv Sinha Aged About 56 Years Resident Of House No.31, State Bank Colony, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management,mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Directorate Of Printing And Stationary, Indravati Bhawan, Block 1, 2nd Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Techno Prints, Behind Banjari Mata Mandir, Near Heera Steel, Rawabhata Industrial Area, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shri Ram Printers And Stationary, Ground Floor, Lodhipara Chowk, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - M/s Sharda Offset Printer Pvt. Ltd. Sejbahar Road, Dunda, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Kaiyumi Printing Press, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.29 10:54:10 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh 8 - Ankit Prakashan, Ring Road No.1, Opposite Ravan Statue, Bhatagaon Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hear Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the illegal extensions given to the private respondents notwithstanding the fact that the original contract was given for a period of 1 year from the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order / writ directing respondent No. 1 to take a final decision on the complaint preferred by the petitioner on 04.02.2025 (ANNEXURE P-5). 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances 3 of the case.” 3. brief facts of the case are that the Government of Chhattisgarh through its Directorate of Printing and Stationery issued a tender in the year 2021 for empanelment of printers for printing, pre-press and post- press work for government presses. As per Clause 22 of the tender conditions, the contract was strictly for a period of one year, expiring on 01.08.2022. After completion of the contractual period, instead of issuing a fresh tender, the respondent authorities allegedly extended the contract repeatedly in favour of the empanelled private respondents. Documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicate multiple extensions, including a letter dated 07.06.2024 seeking consent for further extension. The petitioner, alleging arbitrariness and undue favouritism, submitted a complaint dated 04.02.2025 before the Chief Secretary. However, no action has been taken till date. Aggrieved by inaction and continued extensions, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tender issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh in the year 2021 clearly stipulated, under Clause 22, that the contract for printing and allied works was to remain valid strictly for a period of one year, i.e., up to 01.08.2022. However, in complete disregard of the tender conditions, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily continued the same set of empanelled private respondents by granting repeated extensions year after year, without issuing any fresh tender. The documents obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including note 4 sheets and communication dated 07.06.2024, clearly demonstrate that such extensions have been granted mechanically and without any lawful justification, thereby conferring undue and illegal benefit upon the private respondents. It is further submitted that the aforesaid action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of transparency and fairness in public procurement, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The continuous extensions have effectively eliminated fair competition and caused loss to the public exchequer, as fresh tendering could have resulted in more competitive rates. Despite the petitioner having submitted a detailed complaint before the competent authority, no decision has been taken till date, reflecting complete inaction and non-application of mind. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to act in accordance with law and ensure a fair and transparent tender process. 5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the present petition is misconceived and not maintainable, as the petitioner seeks to challenge administrative decisions taken in the exigency of public service. The extensions granted to the empanelled printers were necessitated to ensure continuity of essential government printing work and to avoid disruption in public administration, and the same were issued in accordance with prevailing administrative practice and policy considerations. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish any mala fide or illegality in the decision-making process, and 5 mere extensions of contractual arrangements, in the absence of any statutory prohibition, do not per se render the action arbitrary. The petitioner, having no vested right in the tender process, cannot seek interference by this Court in contractual and policy matters. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the representation of the petitioner, if pending, shall be considered in accordance with law. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record, this Court has considered the maintainability of the present petition. The petitioner has questioned the action of the Government of Chhattisgarh in extending the contract relating to printing work beyond the stipulated period of the original tender. At the outset, it is well settled that in matters arising out of contractual and tender processes, a petition can be maintained only at the instance of a person who is an aggrieved party or has participated in the tender process and whose legal or fundamental rights are directly affected. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has neither demonstrated participation in the tender process nor established any direct legal injury caused to him on account of the alleged extensions granted to the private respondents. The grievance raised is in the nature of a general challenge to administrative action without disclosing any enforceable right of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner lacks the necessary locus 6 standi to maintain the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standi. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika