[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Ashok Kejriwal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
MANPREET
2026:CGHC:11584-DB
KAUR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
NAFR
KAUR
Date: 2026.03.12
10:49:41 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 945 of 2026
M/s Ashok Kejriwal Sarangarh,distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh Through-
Subham Kejariwal, Partner, S/o Sunil Kumar Kejariwal, A/o 31 Years
R/o Pratapganj, Sarangarh, Distt.Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Rural Engineering Services Through- Chief Engineer, 1st Floor,
Development Commissioner Office, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Division Raigarh,
District- Raigarh, (C.G.)
4 - Sharda Costructions (S Constructions) Gaushala Road, Kharsiya,
District Raigarh, (C.G.) 496661
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
11.03.2026
1 Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State/respondents.
2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
toquash and setting aside the impugned order
dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby the
technical bid of the petitioner submitted pursuant
NIT to No. 1910/Tender/Rural Services/2025-26
dated 23.12.2025 has been rejected;
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
toquash and set aside the Letter of Acceptance
dated 30.01.2026 (AnnexureP/2) and the
consequential Work Order dated02.02.2026
(Annexure P/3) issued in favour of Respondent No.
4;
(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
todirect the respondent authorities to declare the
technical bid of the petitioner as responsive and
eligible and to proceed further with the tender
process strictly in accordance with law;
(iv) Or, In alternative, this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondent authorities to
cancel the tender process, bearing NIT No.
1910/Tender/Rural Services/2025-26 dated
23.12.2025 (annexure P/2) as only one bidder has
been found successful in the technical evaluation,
in accordance with the guidelines issued by PWD
(Annexure P/9).
(v) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also
be granted in favour of the petitioner."
3 The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 issued a
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No. 1910/Tender/Rural
Services/2025-26 dated 23.12.2025 for construction of the District
Panchayat Building at Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Development Block
Sarangarh, District Sarangarh, with an estimated cost of
Rs.3,01,32,000/-. The NIT prescribed various conditions for
participation in the tender process, including submission of a duly
signed Pre-Contract Integrity Pact as per Clause 11 of the Special
Conditions. The petitioner, being eligible, participated in the tender
process and submitted all required documents including a duly
signed Pre-Contract Integrity Pact in the prescribed format.
However, upon opening of the technical bids, the petitioner's bid
was rejected through a system-generated email dated 16.01.2026
on the ground that the "name of work" was not mentioned in the
Integrity Pact. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner submitted
a representation dated 17.01.2026 explaining that the requirement
under Clause 11 was fully complied with and that the Integrity
Pact had been uploaded specifically against the subject tender ID.
Despite the said representation, respondent No.3 passed an order
dated 21.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner's technical bid on the
grounds that the name of the work was not mentioned in
Annexure-J, the document was typed instead of being
downloaded from the portal, and that the footer was not written at
the end of the document. Hence this petition.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these alleged
defects are purely hyper-technical and inconsequential,
particularly when the contents of the Integrity Pact were identical
to the prescribed format and the document had been uploaded in
relation to the specific tender. The petitioner further submits that in
previous tenders floated by the same department, bids were
accepted even when the name of work was not mentioned in the
Integrity Pact. It is further submitted that only two bidders
participated in the tender, namely the petitioner and respondent
No.4. After rejection of the petitioner's technical bid, respondent
No.4 remained the sole bidder. As per prevailing guidelines
followed in civil works in the State of Chhattisgarh, when only a
single bidder qualifies in the first call of tender, the process ought
to be cancelled and re-tendered in order to maintain transparency
and competition. The petitioner initially challenged the rejection by
filing W.P.(C) No. 697/2026 before this Court. During the hearing
on 18.02.2026, it was informed that the work order had already
been issued in favour of respondent No.4 on 02.02.2026. In view
of the said development, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition
with liberty to challenge the said work order. The documents
produced during the hearing reveal that on 16.01.2026
respondent No.4 submitted a representation to respondent No.3
alleging that the petitioner had not mentioned the name of work in
the Integrity Pact. On the very same day, the petitioner received
the system-generated email rejecting his technical bid. Thereafter,
the financial bid was opened and respondent No.4, being the sole
bidder, was declared L-1 with a quote of merely 0.15% below the
PAC value. It is further submitted that although the prevailing
market trend reflected bids approximately 8.50% below the PAC,
respondent No.3 recommended acceptance of the bid of
respondent No.4. Consequently, for a project with PAC value of
Rs. 3,01,32,000/-, the accepted bid resulted in a reduction of only
about Rs. 45,198/-, whereas at the prevailing rate of 8.50% below
PAC the reduction would have been approximately Rs.
25,61,220/-, thereby causing a substantial potential loss to the
public exchequer. The petitioner therefore submits that the
rejection of his technical bid on hyper-technical grounds and the
acceptance of the sole bid of respondent No.4 in the first call of
the tender process is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5 Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing for the State/respondents submits that each tender is
approved separately by the competent authority and the Notice
Inviting Tender (NIT) is issued only after such approval. It is
submitted that the present tender was also issued on the basis of
the approval granted by the competent authority. It is further
submitted that in the online tender bearing No.182267, the office
had uploaded Annexure-J (Pre-Contract Integrity Pact) as part of
the detailed tender document under Appendix-2.10. The said
format clearly contains a specific space where the name of the
work is required to be mentioned. It is contended that the
petitioner did not download the said Annexure-J from the portal
and also failed to fill the particulars required under Clause 6.1(ii)
of the Integrity Pact. As per the tender conditions, the bidder was
required to fill all the relevant details in the Integrity Pact, except
the date mentioned in Clauses 1.1 and 14, and thereafter upload
the scanned copy of the same online. However, the Annexure-J
(Pre-Contract Integrity Pact) uploaded by the petitioner differs
from the format uploaded by the department.
6 Learned State counsel further submits that each page of the
tender document uploaded by the department bears a footer.
However, the document uploaded by the petitioner does not
contain the said footer, which indicates that the document was not
downloaded from the online tender portal relating to Tender
No.182267. Learned State counsel further places reliance on the
order dated 27.11.2014 issued by the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department,
regarding the procedure to be followed in cases of single tender in
construction works. Referring to Clause (iv) of the said order, it is
submitted that where more than one bid is received in the first call
of the tender but only one bidder is found technically qualified
after evaluation, the situation shall not be treated as a "single
tender", and in such cases the financial bid of the technically
qualified bidder may be opened and considered. It is therefore
contended that since two bidders had participated in the tender
process in the present case and only respondent No.4 was found
technically qualified, the case would not fall within the category of
a single tender as contemplated under the said government order.
7 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
8 The rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was primarily on the
ground that the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact submitted by the
petitioner was not in the format uploaded in the tender portal,
inasmuch as the petitioner had not downloaded the Annexure-J
from the portal, had failed to mention the name of the work in the
space specifically provided therein, had not filled certain required
particulars, and the document uploaded by the petitioner also did
not contain the footer appearing in the original tender document.
The tender conditions specifically required the bidders to upload
the duly filled Integrity Pact in the prescribed format forming part
of the tender document. In tender matters, the terms and
conditions of the NIT are binding on all participating bidders and
the tendering authority is entitled to insist upon strict compliance
with such conditions in order to maintain transparency and
uniformity in the bidding process. The decision of the tendering
authority in evaluating the technical bids is essentially
administrative in nature and the scope of judicial review in such
matters is limited to examining whether the process adopted is
arbitrary, mala fide or discriminatory. In the present case, the
reasons assigned for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid
cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational, as the petitioner
admittedly did not upload the Integrity Pact in the format provided
in the tender document.
9 So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding acceptance of
the bid of respondent No.4 as a sole bidder is concerned, the
order dated 27.11.2014 issued by the Government of
Chhattisgarh clearly provides that where more than one bid is
received in response to the first call of tender and upon technical
evaluation only one bidder is found qualified, such a situation shall
not be treated as a case of single tender. In the present case, it is
not in dispute that two bidders had participated in the tender
process and only respondent No.4 was found technically qualified
after evaluation. Therefore, opening of the financial bid of
respondent No.4 and award of the work in its favour cannot be
said to be contrary to the said government order.
10 In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any arbitrariness,
illegality or mala fide in the decision taken by respondent No.3 in
rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner and in awarding the
work to respondent No.4. No case for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the writ
petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Manpreet
