Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Maha Hydraulics Private Limited vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:14471-DB
signed by
NAFR
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.27
14:51:23
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1368 of 2026
1 - M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited (A Registered Private Limited
Company Under The Provision of Companies Act), Office At Plot No. F-
62, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kanchipuram, District 602117, Tamil Nadu, Through Its Vice President
And Authorized Representative Namely Shri Balaji Sridhar, S/o
Shridhar, Aged About 38 Years, A R/o No. No. 71/2, 2nd Floor, Plot No.
5, Vanur Taluk, Sri Mahakaleeshwar Nagar, Irumbai, Villupuram, Tamil
Nadu, Pin 605111
2 - Balaji Sridhar S/o Shridhar Aged About 38 Years (Aadhar No. 9685
4378 7301) R/o No. 71/2, 2nd Floor, Plot No. 5, Vanur Taluk, Sri
Mahakaleeshwar Nagar, Irumbai, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu, Pin 605111
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (A
Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking), Through The Chief Engineer
(S And P Gen) Registered Office- Shed No. 14, In Front of CSPTCL
Dispensary, Dangania, Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492013 Also At- 5th Floor,
Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Daganiya Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492013
2 - The Executive Director (S And P GEN) Chhattisgarh State Power
Generation Company Limited Registered Office- Shed No. 14, In Front
of CSPTCL Dispensary, Dangania, Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Chief Engineer (S And P GEN), Chhattisgarh State Power
Generation Company Limited, Shed No. 14, In Front of CSPTCL
Dispensary, Dangania, Raipur (C.G.)
2
4 - The Chief Engineer (General) Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power
Station (Operated By CSPGCL), Marwa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
5 - M/s SCH Hydraulics Private Limited Tasiowa Industrial Park, Phase-
1, 142-143, Kancheepuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Pin 600044
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :-
"a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities concerned pertaining to the instant case for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of the case.
b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing & setting aside the act of the Respondent authorities, 3 whereby they found/held Respondent no. 5 to be commercially & technically qualified and eligible to participate in the further tender/bidding process including the Reverse Live Auction, in the Tender Notice No.TN- 366/25-26, Tender No. MW-451/25-26 (Rfx No.8100047360) [forms part of Annexure P-2 (Colly)].
c. In the alternate to be above (b), a writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the Respondent authorities to decide upon commercial & technical qualification of the Respondent no. 5 afresh, strictly in accordance with the Tender qualifications and pre-requisites thereof as mentioned in Tender Notice No.TN-366/25-26, Tender No. MW-451/25-26 (Rfx No.8100047360) [forms part of Annexure P-2 (Colly)].
d. the A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the Respondent authorities to decide upon representations/objections [Annexure P-3 & Annexure P-6(Colly)] filed by the Petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
e. Cost of the proceedings.
f. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court."
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner No.1 is a duly incorporated Private Limited Company under the provisions 4 of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the manufacturing of hydraulic motors under the brand "Mascot Drives" for over 25 years, and is represented through its authorized representative, Petitioner No.2. The Respondent authorities, being instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. The Respondent No.1 issued a limited tender dated 10.11.2025 inviting bids for reconditioning and testing of hydraulic motors. The Petitioner participated in the said tender process while consistently objecting to the arbitrary practice of issuing limited tenders and highlighting the alleged ineligibility and lack of credentials of Respondent No.5, a recently incorporated entity (17.03.2023), through various representations.
5. Despite clear tender conditions requiring bidders to furnish audited financial statements and turnover certificates for the preceding three financial years, Respondent No.5, not having completed the requisite period since its incorporation, was prima facie ineligible and liable to be technically disqualified. However, the Respondent authorities failed to consider or decide the objections raised by the Petitioner and proceeded with the tender process.
6. Subsequently, the Petitioner was declared technically qualified, and its financial bid was opened. Shockingly, Respondent No.5 5 was also permitted to proceed to the financial bidding stage and reverse auction, despite its apparent ineligibility. The impugned action of the Respondent authorities, in ignoring the mandatory tender conditions and permitting an unqualified bidder, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, giving rise to the present cause of action.
7. Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the entire decision-making process adopted by the Respondent authorities stands vitiated on account of patent arbitrariness, unreasonableness and non-application of mind, thereby falling foul of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that despite specific and repeated representations highlighting the ineligibility of Respondent No.5, the authorities failed to adjudicate upon the same and mechanically permitted Respondent No.5 to proceed to the financial bid stage, which clearly demonstrates favoritism and a colorable exercise of power. It is further submitted that the tender conditions, particularly those relating to financial eligibility and past experience, were mandatory in nature and formed the backbone of a fair and competitive bidding process. Respondent No.5, admittedly incorporated in the year 2023, does not fulfill the essential requirement of three years' financial credentials and experience, as stipulated under the tender document. Therefore, its 6 participation itself is contrary to the tender conditions, rendering the entire process arbitrary and illegal. Such deviation from essential eligibility criteria not only compromises the sanctity of the tender process but also results in hostile discrimination against the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Otwani argues that the Respondent authorities, being "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are under a constitutional obligation to act fairly, transparently and in a non-discriminatory manner. The failure to consider the objections raised by the Petitioner and the absence of any reasoned decision thereon amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned action also infringes the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by denying a fair opportunity in a State-controlled commercial transaction. Placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular vs Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, it is submitted that while the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is limited, the Court is well within its jurisdiction to interfere where the decision-making process is tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In the present case, the Respondents have clearly acted in disregard of the binding tender conditions and have failed to exercise their discretion in a fair and reasonable manner, thereby attracting the grounds of judicial review.
7
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, it is emphatically submitted by Mr. Otwani that the action of the Respondent authorities in permitting Respondent No.5 to participate in the financial bidding process, despite its apparent ineligibility, is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits at the outset that the present petition is nothing but a second round of litigation arising out of the very same tender process and issues, which have already been agitated by the Petitioner earlier before this Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner had previously approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6303/2025 and 6304/2025 challenging the tender process, which came to be disposed of as premature, with liberty to avail appropriate remedy at the appropriate stage. The present petition, according to the Respondents, is an attempt to re-agitate the same grievances in a different form, and therefore deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further contended that the tender process is still within the administrative and contractual domain of the Respondent authorities, and the scope of interference by this Hon'ble Court in such matters is extremely limited. Placing reliance on the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular (supra), it is submitted that judicial review is confined only to the decision- 8 making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Unless the Petitioner is able to demonstrate patent illegality, mala fides, or arbitrariness of a high order, no interference is warranted in contractual matters, particularly at an intermediate stage of tender evaluation.
11. Mr. Tiwari further submits that the allegations made by the Petitioner regarding the ineligibility of Respondent No.5 are misconceived and premature. It is contended that the technical evaluation of bids is carried out by an expert committee constituted by the Respondent authorities, and such evaluation involves consideration of multiple factors, including technical capability, financial credentials, and overall responsiveness of the bid. The Petitioner, being a competing bidder, cannot be permitted to sit in appeal over the decision of the expert committee or seek disqualification of another bidder on the basis of its own interpretation of the tender conditions. It is also submitted that the tender conditions do not mandate automatic disqualification in the manner suggested by the Petitioner, and the Respondent authorities retain sufficient discretion to evaluate bids in a pragmatic and commercially viable manner. The Respondents deny that any undue favour or preferential treatment has been extended to Respondent No.5, and assert that the entire process has been conducted in a fair, transparent and competitive manner, in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions. 9
12. It is contended by Mr. Tiwari that the Petitioners have failed to establish any violation of its fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Mere participation in a tender process does not confer any vested right upon the Petitioner to demand exclusion of other bidders or to seek award of the contract in its favour. It is trite law that in matters of government contracts, the State is entitled to act in a manner which is in the best commercial interest, so long as the process adopted is not arbitrary or discriminatory. In conclusion, it is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that the present writ petition is devoid of merit, is premature in nature, and amounts to an abuse of the process of law by repeatedly challenging the tender process. The Petitioners have failed to make out any case warranting interference under the writ jurisdiction of this Court, and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the relevant provisions governing the field.
14. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present writ petition arises out of a tender process initiated by the Respondent authorities, wherein the Petitioners have participated and have also been declared technically qualified. The grievance of the Petitioners essentially pertains to the alleged ineligibility of Respondent No.5 and the decision of the Respondent authorities to permit 10 Respondent No.5 to proceed to the stage of financial bidding. The challenge, thus, is directed not against the rejection of the Petitioners' bid, but against the inclusion of a competing bidder in the zone of consideration.
15. This Court finds that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular (supra). It has been consistently held that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decisions of the administrative or expert bodies in such matters. The judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Interference is warranted only in cases where the process is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, or procedural impropriety of such a degree that it shocks the conscience of the Court.
16. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out a case warranting interference. The principal contention of the Petitioners is that Respondent No.5 does not fulfill the eligibility criteria relating to financial capability and past experience, particularly the requirement of three years' credentials. However, the evaluation of such eligibility criteria, especially in the context of technical and financial qualifications, falls squarely within the domain of the tendering authority and the 11 expert committee constituted for that purpose. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would be slow to substitute its own interpretation for that of the expert body, unless the same is shown to be ex facie arbitrary or perverse.
17. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to conclusively demonstrate that the decision of the Respondent authorities in treating Respondent No.5 as eligible is so arbitrary or irrational that no reasonable authority could have taken such a view. Mere allegation that Respondent No.5 was incorporated recently or has not completed three financial years, by itself, cannot be a ground for interference unless it is shown that the tender conditions mandated strict and inflexible compliance without any scope of interpretation or relaxation. The Petitioners have not been able to establish that the tender conditions were violated in a manner that strikes at the root of the process or that the Respondent authorities acted with mala fide intent to favour Respondent No.5.
18. It is also pertinent to note that the present petition is, in effect, a second round of litigation. The Petitioners had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the tender process at a premature stage, which petition was disposed of with liberty to approach at an appropriate stage. The present petition, though filed after some progression in the tender process, substantially raises the same grounds which were available to the Petitioners earlier. The 12 conduct of the Petitioners in repeatedly invoking the writ jurisdiction at different stages of the same tender process cannot be appreciated, particularly when the process has not yet culminated in the award of contract.
19. Further, the Petitioners have not demonstrated as to how their fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand infringed. It is trite that participation in a tender process does not confer any vested or fundamental right upon a bidder, except the right to be treated fairly and without discrimination. In the present case, the Petitioners themselves have been declared technically qualified and have been allowed to participate in the financial bidding process. Thus, no prejudice, much less any constitutional violation, can be said to have been caused to them.
20. So far as the contention regarding non-consideration of representations is concerned, the same, in the facts of the present case, does not vitiate the entire tender process. The administrative authorities are not required to pass detailed adjudicatory orders on every representation made by a competing bidder, particularly in a commercial tender process involving multiple stakeholders. What is required is that the process, as a whole, be fair, transparent and reasonable, which, in the present case, does not appear to have been compromised.
13
21. This Court is also mindful of the fact that interference at this stage of the tender process, especially when the financial bids are under consideration and the reverse auction is imminent, would derail the entire procurement process and may adversely affect public interest. The law is well-settled that in matters of public contracts, the Court must exercise restraint and should not interfere lightly, particularly when such interference may have cascading effects on public projects and administrative efficiency.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioners have failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or procedural impropriety in the decision-making process of the Respondent authorities so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
23. However, it is observed that the Respondent authorities shall ensure that the tender process is carried to its logical conclusion in a fair, transparent and expeditious manner, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender and in larger public interest.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu