-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
1. Heard Mr. Trivikram Nayak and Mr. Shivam Agrawal, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned
counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / Chhattisgarh
Police Housing Corporation Ltd. and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned
Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.3.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article
08/08/2025 bearing e-Proc Tender Number 173452 is
just and proper and the Respondent authorities vis-à-
vis CGPHCL (Respondent No. 1 & 2) be specifically
directed to SSION Issue Letter of Acceptance in
Petitioner's favour in the 3rd Call and also execute an
agreement for the same;
IV. That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be
pleased to impose exemplary costs on the tender
inviting authority CGPHCL (Respondent No. 1 & 2)
which has acted in arbitrary, illegal and malafide
manner in the matter at hand and further the Hon'ble
Court may provide monetary compensation for the
mental agony, harassment and the hardships faced
by the petitioner owing to the arbitrary & illegal
conduct of respondent authorities vis-à-vis CGPHCL;
V. That, this Hon'ble Court may grant any other
relief in favour of the Petitioner, which it deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of Justice, including the cost of the Petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner,
who is a Proprietorship firm having Class 'D' registration registered
as Class 'D' civil contractor with the Public Works Department
(PWD) with an experience of over 15 years in field of civil
work/construction work & the firm also regularly engages in engine
& body repairing work, electrical & general order supplier work,
had participated in the (Third Call) of the tender bearing Tender
No. CGPHC/724/TS/Building/ 2025, Raipur, Dated: 08/08/2025
bearing e-Proc Tender Number-173452 which was issued by C.G.
Police Housing Corporation Ltd. vis-à-vis Respondent No. 1 & 2
for Construction of Police Control Room at Manendragarh-
Bharatpur-Chirmiri, District- Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri
(C.G.) for a Probable Amount of Contract totalling 83.28 Lakh
Rupees. In the said 3rd Call for Tender the Petitioner had duly
participated in the same having all requisite qualifications and he
was eligible as per the tender terms and conditions and
accordingly he was declared eligible bidder and subsequently in
the financial rounds he was declared L-1 bidder. Yet despite
passage of time and repeated requests and communication the
respondent authorities failed to issue the Letter of Acceptance in
favour of Petitioner and also did not ever respond about the same.
Furthermore, the respondent authorities arbitrarily have issued the
4th round of tender with the exact specification and requirement
and whereas neither any communication has been made nor any
information has been published either on the e-procurement portal
or on website of respondent corporation informing the reason for
arbitrarily, irrationally and wrongly issuing 4th Call for Tender
without even actually cancelling the 3rd Call for tender wherein
Petitioner was rightly declared as L-1. He further submitted that to
the utter shock of Petitioner the details of L-1 has been later on
removed from the e-proc portal which shows backend
manipulation and concealing of information at the hands of the
respondent corporation which is per se arbitrary and illegal. The
action of respondent authorities tantamounts to having arbitrarily
and illegally the 4th Call for tender is illegal arbitrary & issued in
bad faith and is liable to be quashed/set-aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 & 2 / Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Ltd. opposed
the aforesaid submission and submitted that though the petitioner
has been declared L-1 in the 3rd Call for the tender, but later on
when it came to the notice of the respondent authorities that for
compliance of the Clause No. 8(3), a special condition as per NIT,
which says that it is mandatory to submit online by the contractor
the list of on-going works/works in hand. If any work is found
delayed beyond one year from the stipulated date of completion,
the contractor will be disqualified for the reason of poor
performance, the petitioner had submitted false or wrong affidavit,
hence, his bid was rejected and 4 th Call has been invited for the
same work.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the documents placed on record including the Notice
Inviting Tender (NIT), the relevant clauses thereof and the
pleadings filed by the respective parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the 3rd Call of
Tender bearing Tender No. CGPHC/724/TS/Building/2025, dated
08.08.2025, issued by respondent No.1 & 2 for construction of
Police Control Room at Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri, and
that he was declared L-1 in the financial bid.
7. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that despite being
declared L-1, no Letter of Acceptance was issued in his favour and
instead the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the 4th Call
for Tender for the same work without formally cancelling the earlier
tender, which according to him is arbitrary and mala fide.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 & 2
submitted that though the petitioner was declared L-1, during
scrutiny it was noticed that for compliance of Clause 8(3) of the
NIT, which mandatorily requires submission of an online affidavit
regarding list of ongoing works/works in hand and provides for
disqualification if any work is found delayed beyond one year from
the stipulated date of completion, the petitioner had submitted a
false/incorrect affidavit. On detection of such discrepancy, his bid
was rejected and consequently the 4th Call for Tender was issued.
9. On a pointed query put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to
whether the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in compliance of
Clause 8(3) of the NIT was correct and in consonance with the
factual position, he was unable to furnish any plausible
explanation or demonstrate that the affidavit was accurate and
free from suppression of material facts.
10. It is well settled that a bidder participating in a tender process
must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the NIT.
Submission of a false or misleading affidavit in respect of eligibility
conditions strikes at the very root of the tender process and
disentitles the bidder from claiming any equitable relief. Mere
declaration as L-1 does not confer an indefeasible right to
issuance of Letter of Acceptance, particularly when the bid is
found to be non-compliant with mandatory conditions.
11. In the present case, Clause 8(3) of the NIT is a mandatory
eligibility condition. Once it was found that the affidavit submitted
by the petitioner was not in conformity with the actual status of
ongoing works, the respondent authorities were justified in
rejecting his bid. The decision to invite a 4th Call for Tender, in
such circumstances, cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide or
actuated by bias.
12. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over
administrative decisions in tender matters. Interference is
warranted only when the decision-making process is shown to be
arbitrary, irrational or in violation of statutory provisions. No such
ground has been made out in the present case.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
writ petition. The petitioner has failed to establish any arbitrariness
or illegality in the action of respondent No.1 & 2 in rejecting his bid
and issuing the 4th Call for Tender. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
