[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
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,
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
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
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
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.
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-
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
