Chattisgarh High Court
Laxmi Charan Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15236-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1456 of 2026
Laxmi Charan Agrawal S/o Jagdamba Prasad Agrawal Aged About 44
Years R/o House No. 293, Ward No. 34, Medical Complex, Telipara,
Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Ministry of Corporate
Affairs, 1st Floor, Late Shri Ashok Pingley Bhawan, Municipal
Corporation, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Registrar Office of Registrar of Companies, Ministry Of Corporate
Affairs, 1st Floor, Late Shri Ashok Pingley Bhawan, Municipal
Corporation, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Public Works Department Through- Secretary, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
5 - M/s Ramsaran Singh Through- The Partner Ramsaran Singh
Bhadoria, S/o Late Raj Bahadur Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
House No. 56, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.)
6 - M/s Chikhalkar And Co. Through- F.C.A., Circuit House Road,
Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.)
7 - WAPCOS Limited A Government of India undertaking, Through-
Engineer-in-Chief, 76-C Institutional Area, Sector- 18, Gurugram
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
Digitally signed
District- Gurugram, Haryana.
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
... Respondents
2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, Advocate For State/respondents : Ms. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Adv. General
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.04.2026
1. Heard Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders on defaults, namely, advance copy not served to respondent No.7, page Nos. 22, 44, 45, 46 are fail and page Nos. 60, 61 are faint in spare part, however, considering the prayers and pleadings made in the instant writ petition, defaults pointed out by the Registry stand over-ruled.
3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :-
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into the repeated fraudulent practices of The Respondent No.5 in public tender bids and to take appropriate actions against them.3
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent No.5 from participating in any future public tenders or contracts, thereby safeguarding the integrity of public procurement process.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take strict action against the Respondent No.6 for issuance of forged certificate and fabricating Financial Data to be used for participation in Bids for Respondent No.5.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct Respondent No.7 for strict action against forged certificate and fabricating Financial Data to be used for participation in Bids by Respondent No.5.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate."
5. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the Respondent No.5, alleging that he is using the experience, turnover, profits and networth credentials of partnership firm in his new LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) as M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP having PAN ABIFR7963 and GST No. 22ABIFR7963C175 and misrepresenting and deceiving authorities while participating in various Bids for Tenders, and against Respondent No.6 for fabricating financial data for the years when the LLP did not exist and certificate of merger without verifying existence of entities. It is further alleged that the Respondent No.5 has been using same PAN for various entities which is illegal and has not complied with the mandatory prerequisites for conversion or merger as Form-17 and NCLT approval does not exist which is a statutory requirement 4 Additionally, the Respondent No.5 claims merger of its Partnership firm which means it should be dissolved but it still operates and Respondent No.5 files GST Returns under same Registration, proving no merger occurred and the Respondent No.5 being an LLP, in its Take-over (Merger) Deed, is mentioned as a Company under Companies Act, showing intention to deceive and they have been successful in escaping any legal action against them only by raising technical grounds and not on merits seeking aforementioned reliefs.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 has misrepresented its credentials by unlawfully relying on the experience, turnover and financials of a separate partnership firm, thereby vitiating the fairness of the bidding process. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5, in collusion with respondent No. 6, has relied upon financial data for periods when the LLP did not exist and has produced unverified merger documents, while also using the same PAN across distinct legal entities, which is impermissible in law. It is also submitted that the alleged merger is wholly non-compliant with the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, as no requisite statutory approvals or filings have been made, and the continued operation of the partnership firm, including filing of GST returns, clearly disproves any such merger. She contended that the inconsistencies in the Take-over Deed and the reliance on incorrect credentials render the bid non- responsive under settled procurement norms. She further 5 contended that despite these serious irregularities, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in limine, as it raises disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that respondent No. 5 participated in the tender process in accordance with prescribed conditions and furnished all required documents, and the evaluation was conducted strictly as per the tender terms without any arbitrariness. It is further submitted that the issues regarding alleged merger, financial credentials and use of PAN require detailed factual examination by competent authorities and cannot be the subject of a writ petition. It is also submitted that no violation of any statutory provision or tender condition is made out, and the petitioner, being an unsuccessful bidder, is seeking to stall the process, therefore, in the absence of any illegality, mala fides or perversity, the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that the controversy raised by the petitioner pertains to alleged misrepresentation of credentials, validity of merger/conversion, and use of financial data by Respondent No. 5, which involve seriously disputed questions of fact requiring detailed examination of evidence and are therefore 6 not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v.
Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 that judicial review in contractual matters is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision, and that "the court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made" Further, in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out".
10. In the present case, no patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions or tender conditions has been demonstrated on the face of the record; accordingly, in view of the settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra