[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Landmark Engineer vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14951-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.04.02
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
10:27:28
+0530
WPC No. 1345 of 2026
Landmark Engineer Through Its Proprietor Nishant Jain, S/o Shri
Suresh Chand Jain, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ring Road No. 2, Shanti
Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Principal Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahnadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan North
Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur
(C.G.)
4 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Kanker Circle,
Kanker (C.G.)
5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, (B/R) Division
Narayanpur (C.G.)
6 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur
(C.G.)
--- Respondents
Landmark Engineer, Through Its Proprietor Nishant Jain, S/o Shri
Suresh Chand Jain, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ring Road No. 2, Shanti
Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan North
Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Kanker Circle,
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, (B/R) Division
Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Chief Egnineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr.Amit Soni, Advocate
For Respondents : 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
1.4.2026
1. Heard Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.Amit Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing for the respondents/State.
2. The petitioner has filed WPC No.1345/2026 with following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a suitable writ/direction for setting
aside the Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.
1052/TC/2025-26 dated 09.03.2026 (ANNEXURE-
P-1) in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue the suitable writ/direction directing
respondent authorities to award the contract to the
petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be permitted
to comply with the terms of LOI dated 17.02.2026.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue a writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions and the respondent authorities
may kindly be directed not to forfeit the security
amount of the petitioner furnished in pursuance of
the first Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.
582/TC/2025-26 dated 07.11.2025 and they may
further be directed not to suspend the registration of
the petitioner as Class A contractor.
10.4 That, the suitable writ/direction may kindly be
issued commanding the respondents to initiate
fresh tender process.
10.5 That, any other further order(s) as deemed fit
and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the interest
of justice."
3. The petitioner has filed WPC No.1346/2026 with following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a suitable writ/direction for setting
aside the Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.
1051/TC/2025-26 dated 09.03.2026 (ANNEXURE-
P-1) in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue the suitable writ/direction directing
respondent authorities to award the contract to the
petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be permitted
to comply with the terms of LOI dated 17.02.2026.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue a writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions and the respondent authorities
may kindly be directed not to forfeit the security
amount of the petitioner furnished in pursuance of
the first Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.
581/TC/2025-26 dated 07.11.2025 and they may
further be directed not to suspend the registration of
the petitioner as Class A contractor.
10.4 That, the suitable writ/direction may kindly be
issued commanding the respondents to initiate
fresh tender process.
10.5 That, any other further order(s) as deemed fit
and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the interest
of justice."
4. Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Amit Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, as per
the consequences arising from the tender condition, i.e., Clause
4.7.1, since the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of
the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), the resulting consequence in the
present case would be temporary suspension for a period of two
years. He further contends that the petitioner, through no fault of
his own, should not be penalized. He also points out that the
petitioner was required to furnish additional performance security,
which was communicated via speed post; however, before the
expiry of 15 days period, the tender awarded in favour of the
petitioner was cancelled, and a fresh NIT was issued by the
respondents.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State, opposes
the arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner failed to fulfill the
condition of the NIT regarding furnishing additional performance
security. Therefore, the consequences under Clause 4.7.1 of the
NIT may follow; however, no such decision has been taken so far.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as
the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we
are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed at this stage.
However, if any further cause of action arises in future, the
petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law. No order as to
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
