[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Nilesh Patel vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17344-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026.04.17
14:01:07
+0530
WPC No. 1749 of 2026
Nilesh Patel S/o- Baldau Prasad Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o- Village-
Tendua, Post-Deorbija, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through The
Superintending Engineer, Cspdcl Circle Durg, District-Durg (C.G.)
2 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company
Limited (O And M) Division Saja, District-Bemetara (C.G.)
3 - M/s W N Electricals, Through Its Proprietor, Shoeb Mohammad Khan
S/o Wahab Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o- Village- Karwa, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Shashwat Rai, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Veer Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Mr. Shashwat Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1
and 2
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
relief(s) :-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing
the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to conduct a
detailed inquiry into the entire tender process
under Tender No. 5313 dated 23.02.2026,
particularly regarding the completeness and
validity of documents submitted by Respondent
No.3, the criteria and procedure adopted for
evaluation, compliance_with tender conditions
and whether a level playing field was ensured for
all bidders, and to submit the inquiry report
before this Hon'ble Court within such time as
may be deemed fit.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to withhold the
issuance of the work order in favour of private
Respondent No.3 till the completion of the inquiry
and till further orders of this Hon'ble Court.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems
fit and appropriate."
3. Facts of the case are that the Respondent Company, namely
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited
(CSPDCL), is an undertaking of the State of Chhattisgarh. On
23.02.2026, Respondent No. 1 issued a tender notice inviting e-
bids under Tender No. 5313 dated 23.02.2026 from interested
individuals/agencies for engagement of manpower through
outsourcing for the Deorbija Distribution Center under
Respondent No. 2, i.e., Executive Engineer (O&M), CSPDCL
Division, Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.). The last date and time for
submission of e-bids was 14.03.2026 at 5:00 PM, and the date of
opening of the bids was 15.03.2026. Only those contractors
possessing valid GST registration were eligible to participate in
the said e-tender process through the online e-bidding portal of
CSPDCL. Manual tenders were not accepted.
4. The the Petitioner, being eligible, participated in the aforesaid
tender process and duly submitted his bid through the prescribed
e-bidding procedure. On 15.03.2026, the tender was opened by
the respondent authorities. However, the process was not
conducted in a transparent manner, and the contract was
arbitrarily awarded to the private Respondent No. 3. The tender
process conducted by the respondents lacked transparency, and
the Petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that the documents
submitted by Respondent No. 3 were either incomplete or invalid,
and/or that the evaluation criteria and procedure were not
followed in a fair, transparent, and impartial manner.
5. On 08.04.2026, the Petitioner submitted a written complaint to
Respondent No. 1 seeking an inquiry into the aforesaid tender
process. In the complaint, the Petitioner stated that under Tender
No. 10-30/2025-26/PUR/5313 dated 23.02.2026, the private
Respondent No. 3, namely M/s W N Electricals, had been
declared as L1 (lowest bidder). The Petitioner raised concerns
requiring clarification to ensure transparency and fairness,
including:
(i) whether the documents submitted by Respondent
No. 3 were complete and valid;
(ii) the criteria and procedure adopted during the
tender evaluation process;
(iii) whether all applicable rules and conditions were
duly complied with while determining eligibility; and
(iv) whether a level playing field was ensured for all
participants.
6. The Petitioner further requested that an inquiry be conducted and
that, pending such inquiry, appropriate steps be taken, including
withholding issuance of the work order. The Petitioner participated
in the e-tender process in a bona fide manner and submitted all
requisite documents as per the tender conditions. However, the
Respondents have acted in an arbitrary and high-handed manner
by not disclosing the basis for declaring Respondent No. 3 as the
L1 bidder. Hence, the present petition is being filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire tender
process initiated by the respondent authorities stands vitiated on
account of lack of transparency, fairness and adherence to the
prescribed procedure. It is contended that although the petitioner
duly participated in the e-tender process by submitting all requisite
documents within the stipulated time, the respondents, in a wholly
arbitrary and non-transparent manner, have declared the private
respondent No.3 as L1 without disclosing the basis or evaluation
criteria adopted for such determination. Such action, it is argued, is
in clear violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, which obligates the State and its instrumentalities to act in a
fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner in matters of public
contracts. He further submits that there exists a reasonable and
bona fide apprehension that the bid submitted by respondent No.3
may not have fulfilled the eligibility conditions or may have been
deficient in material particulars, yet the same has been accepted
without proper scrutiny. It is argued that the respondents have
failed to ensure a level playing field amongst all participating
bidders, thereby defeating the very object of competitive bidding,
which is to secure fairness, transparency and protection of public
exchequer. The non-disclosure of evaluation methodology and
absence of comparative assessment further renders the process
arbitrary and liable to be interfered with.
8. It is also contended that the petitioner, upon noticing the
irregularities, promptly approached respondent No.1 by way of a
detailed representation dated 08.04.2026 seeking an inquiry into
the tender process and requesting that the issuance of work order
be withheld till such inquiry is completed. However, despite lapse
of considerable time, the respondent authorities have failed to
take any action on the said complaint, thereby compelling the
petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no
efficacious alternative remedy available.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1
and 2 submits that the tender process in question has been
conducted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
tender document and the applicable rules governing public
procurement. It is contended that the entire process was carried out
through a transparent e-bidding system, ensuring fairness and equal
opportunity to all eligible participants, including the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the private respondent No.3 has been
declared L1 on the basis of objective evaluation of bids and
fulfillment of all eligibility criteria as prescribed in the tender. The
allegation of arbitrariness or lack of transparency is wholly
unfounded and unsupported by any cogent material. Learned
counsel submits that mere non-selection of the petitioner does not
give rise to any cause of action, especially in contractual matters
where limited judicial interference is warranted. It is also contended
that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the tender
conditions or relevant rules, and the present petition is premature
and not maintainable. The representation submitted by the petitioner
is under consideration, and no prejudice has been caused
warranting interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the tender
notice dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P/1), the documents appended
with the writ petition including the petitioner's bid documents
(Annexure P/2) and the complaint dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure P/3),
as well as the return filed by respondents No.1 and 2.
11. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the
tender process undertaken by the respondent authorities for
engagement of manpower through outsourcing under Tender No.
5313 dated 23.02.2026 has been conducted in a fair, transparent
and non-arbitrary manner, particularly in declaring respondent No.3
as L1 (lowest bidder).
12. It is not in dispute that the tender in question was invited through an
e-bidding process with specific eligibility conditions and evaluation
criteria, and that all participating bidders, including the petitioner and
respondent No.3, were required to submit their bids online within the
stipulated time. The process, by its very nature, is designed to
ensure transparency and objectivity in the award of public contracts.
13. This Court finds substance in the submission advanced by learned
counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 that the bids received were
evaluated by the competent authority in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the tender document. The determination of L1 has
been made on the basis of financial bids submitted by the eligible
bidders, and such evaluation falls within the domain of the tendering
authority.
14. In the present case, the petitioner has primarily raised
apprehensions with regard to the alleged lack of transparency and
has questioned the validity of the bid submitted by respondent No.3.
However, except for making general allegations, no specific material
has been placed on record to demonstrate that respondent No.3
was ineligible or that the evaluation process suffered from any
procedural irregularity or illegality.
15. Merely because the petitioner has participated in the tender process
and has not been declared successful would not, by itself, be a
ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents, unless it is
shown that the process adopted was arbitrary, discriminatory or
actuated by mala fides. The records placed before this Court do not
indicate any such infirmity.
16. This Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner has
submitted a representation dated 08.04.2026 raising certain
grievances; however, non-consideration of such representation at
this stage would not ipso facto vitiate the entire tender process,
particularly when the process has otherwise been conducted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure.
17. The scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is
limited. Unless the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary,
irrational, mala fide or in violation of the terms of the tender,
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
warranted. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-
evaluate the bids or substitute its own decision for that of the
tendering authority.
18. The Apex Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt.
Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No.
11005 OF 2024, decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the
decisions rendered in various other celebrated judgments,
observed as under:-
"21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal
proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this
Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the
Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a
Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it
merely reviews the manner in which the decision was
made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities
must have a freedom of entering into the contracts.
However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the
government/ its instrumentalities must be free from
arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or
actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public
authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and
public interest even while dealing with contractual
matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors
arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no
bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the
bidding process and that the entire bidding process is
carried out in absolutely transparent manner.
22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established
tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial
intervention in Government Contracts.
23. In Sterling Computers Limited vs. M/s. M & N
Publications Limited and Others1, this Court while
dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of
contracts held: -
"18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in
respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the
State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether
there has been any infirmity in the "decision making
process". In this connection reference may be made
to the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales
Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was
said that: (p. 144a)
1 (1993) 1 SCC 445
"The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that
the individual receives fair treatment, and not to
ensure that the authority, after according fair
treatment, reaches on a matter which it is
authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself
a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the
court."
By way of judicial review the court cannot examine
the details of the terms of the contract which have
been entered into by the public bodies or the State.
Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any
such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by
the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief
Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans
[(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly
examine whether "decision-making process" was
reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution."
24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India2, this Court had
laid down certain priniciples for the judicial review of
administrative action.
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but
merely reviews the manner in which the decision
was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct
the administrative decision. If a review of the
administrative decision is permitted it will be
substituting its own decision, without the necessary
expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be
open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to
tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking,
the decision to accept the tender or award the
contract is reached by process of negotiations
through several tiers. More often than not, such
decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract.
In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body functioning in
2 (1994) 6 SCC 651
an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative
sphere. However, the decision must not only be
tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out
above) but must be free from arbitrariness not
affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy
administrative burden on the administration and lead
to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on
these principles we will examine the facts of this
case since they commend to us as the correct
principles."
25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited
and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation
of India Limited and Others3, as under: -
"53. From the above, it is clear that when an
instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public
good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and
unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or
statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the
constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the
Constitution."
26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others 4,
this Court after discussing number of judgments laid
down two tests to determine the extent of judicial
interference in tender matters. They are: -
"22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision
made by the authority is mala fide or intended to
favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or
decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the
court can say: "the decision is such that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have reached;"
(ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers
are in the negative, there should be no interference
under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or
imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse
(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences,
dealerships and franchises) stand on a different
3 (2004) 3 SCC 553
4 (2007) 14 SCC 517
footing as they may require a higher degree of
fairness in action."
27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and
Others5, while observing that the government contracts
granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness,
equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual
matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: -
"50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in
government contracts, if granted by the government
bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality
and rule of law while dealing with contractual
matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The
transparent bidding process is favoured by the Court
to ensure that constitutional requirements are
satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee
as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India demands the State to act in a fair and
reasonable manner unless public interest demands
otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of
compromise of any private legitimate interest must
correspond proportionately to the public interest."
28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned
Counsels for the Respondents relying upon the
observations made in Central Coalfields Limited and
Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and
Others6, that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is
a decision taken by the employer which should be
respected. However, in the said judgment also it is
observed that if the employer has exercised the inherent
authority to deviate from the essential term, such
deviation has to be made applicable to all the bidders and
potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as
under:-
"47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of
the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder
should be looked at not only from the point of view
of the unsuccessful party but alsofrom the point of
view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the
5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574
6 (2016) 8 SCC 622
terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant
or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and
the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata
Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6
SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in
interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the
soundness of the decision taken by the employer
ought not to be questioned but the decision-making
process can certainly be subject to judicial review.
The soundness of the decision may be questioned if
it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour
someone or a decision "that no responsible authority
acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant
law could have reached" as held in Jagdish Mandal
[Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC
517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber
(India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC
216].
48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or
not is a decision taken by the employer which
should be respected. Even if the term is essential,
the employer has the inherent authority to deviate
from it provided the deviation is made applicable to
all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty
v.International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3
SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the
employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even
thatdecision should be respected. The lawfulness of
that decision can be questioned on very limited
grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions
discussed above, but the soundness of the decision
cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be
taking over the function of the tender issuing
authority, which it cannot."
19. Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of M/S. Steag Energy
Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. GSPC Pipavav Power Company
Ltd. (GPPC) & Ors. {SLP (C) No(S).30209-30210 of 2025},
decided on 25.03.2026 held that the final choice is of the owner,
and it is for the owner to take the final decision with necessary
flexibility and pragmatism. While exercising judicial review of
contractual matters, constitutional courts do not exercise, should
not exercise ex-ante jurisdiction to pre-empt executive actions. On
this count, High Court has exceeded the first principle of judicial
restraint in contractual matters.
20. Applying the well settled proposition of law to the facts of this case,
we do not find any merit in this petition and the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief as claimed in this petition. As such, the writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/- d/-
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
