Ashok Kumar Mittal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

2026:CGHC:12597-DB
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1152 of 2026
Ashok Kumar Mittal Engineers And Contractors Proprietor- Ashok

Kumar Mittal S/o P.L. Mittal, Aged About 59 Years Hig-02, M.P. Nagar,

Niharika Road, Korba (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur

(C.G.)

2. Chief Engineer (Tender Cell) Office Of Engineering-In-Chief,

Water Resources Department Shivnath Bhawan, North Block,

Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

3. M/s S. Kumar Construction Co. Through Partner Mukesh Ku.

Lakker S/o Mohanlal Lakker Office Address- Maharani Laxmibai

Chowk, Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.

                       For Respondent/State          :    Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE     Date:
          2026.03.17

                                                          Advocate General.
          17:56:18
          +0530


               Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
             Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
                                 Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
17.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the State/respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

"1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the invited tender through NIT No. 42/SAC/25-25 with system tender No. 182199 regarding work of reconstruction of Bagod Anicut cum Lift Irrigation Scheme at block Kanker, for its kind perusal.

2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 (Anneuxre P/1) and order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P/2) declaring the respondent No. 3 to be succesful bidder.

3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authority to open the financial bid of the petitioner and if it is found to be lowest bid then the petitioner may be declared to be successful bidder.

4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

proprietorship firm represented through its proprietor and is entitled to

all legal and constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of

India. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 invited a tender on

24.12.2025 through NIT No. 42/SAC/25-26 with System Tender

No.182199 for the work of Reconstruction of Bagod Anicut Cum Lift

Irrigation Scheme at Block Kanker having a probable contract value of

Rs. 2177.50 lakhs (excluding GST). The stipulated period for

completion of the work was 18 months (including rainy season) from the

date of issuance of the work order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner submitted its bid through the online portal

https://eproc.cgstate.gov.in on 14.01.2026 at 1:26 p.m. Along with the

bid documents, the petitioner furnished its A-Class Registration

Certificate issued by the Public Works Department bearing Unique

Identification Number CGeR01707 dated 16.08.2024, along with all

other requisite documents in terms of the tender conditions. It is

contended that as per Clause 2.1.4 of Part-II of the Notice Inviting

Tender dated 24.12.2025, after opening of Envelope "B", evaluation of

pre-qualification was to be carried out on the basis of the information

furnished in the annexures submitted by the tenderers. During scrutiny

of the documents, the petitioner was shown to be disqualified on the

ground that its registration had been downgraded from Class-A to

Class-B. Consequently, an explanation was sought from the petitioner

through email dated 02.02.2026 directing the petitioner to submit its

reply within two days, failing which it would be presumed that the

petitioner had no explanation to offer and the tender process would be

proceeded with accordingly.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that upon

receipt of the said communication, the petitioner promptly submitted its

reply through email dated 03.02.2026 enclosing its explanation dated

03.02.2026. In the said reply, it was specifically stated that the

degradation order dated 14.07.2025 had already been set aside by the

High Court of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 22.01.2026 passed in WPC

No. 6221/2025. It was further brought to the notice of the authority that

the said order had been forwarded to the Public Works Department

through communications dated 30.01.2026 and 31.01.2026 requesting

restoration and continuation of the petitioner's A-Class contractor

registration as it existed prior to the order dated 14.07.2025. It was

emphasized that in view of the order passed by the High Court, the

degradation order dated 14.07.2025 had ceased to exist and therefore

the petitioner's registration could not be treated as downgraded. It is

further submitted that thereafter, vide order dated 10.02.2026, the Chief

Engineer, Public Works Department, in compliance with the order

passed by the High Court in WPC No. 6221/2025, passed a formal

order restoring the petitioner's A-Class registration.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the

detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner and notwithstanding the

subsequent restoration of the petitioner's A-Class registration, the

respondent authority, by the impugned communication dated

06.03.2026, rejected the petitioner's bid in Tender No. 182199 during

Part-I (Envelope-B) evaluation, i.e., the Techno-Commercial Evaluation

conducted by the Water Resources Department, and disqualified the

petitioner from further participation in the tender process on the ground

that the petitioner's registration had been downgraded from Class-A to

Class-B. It is further submitted that on the very same day, i.e.,

06.03.2026, the financial bids were opened and respondent No. 3 was

declared as L-1 with a quoted value of Rs. 23,51,00,000/-, whereas the

financial bid submitted by the petitioner was substantially lower.

According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent authority in

disqualifying the petitioner and declaring respondent No. 3 as the

successful bidder is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, particularly

when the degradation order had already been set aside.

7. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

respondent authority, despite calling for an explanation under Clause

2.1.4 of Part-II of the Notice Inviting Tender, failed to properly consider

the petitioner's reply and proceeded to disqualify the petitioner on a

ground which had already ceased to exist. It is contended that the

degradation order dated 14.07.2025 had been challenged by the

petitioner in WPC No. 6221/2025, wherein the Court had issued notice

to the State. Learned counsel further submits that as per the tender

conditions the successful bidder ought to be the one who has quoted

the lowest price. However, in the present case, although the petitioner

had quoted a lower price than respondent No. 3, the petitioner was

excluded from further participation, resulting in respondent No. 3 being

declared L-1. It is therefore argued that the decision of the respondent

authority is likely to cause financial loss to the public exchequer and

warrants interference by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the tender

conditions required the bidder to possess the requisite registration and

eligibility as on the last date of submission of the bid. It is submitted that

the last date for submission of bids was 14.01.2026 and on that date the

petitioner stood downgraded to B-Class pursuant to the order dated

14.07.2025. The State counsel submits that the eligibility of a bidder has

to be determined with reference to the status existing on the date of

submission of the tender documents and not on the basis of subsequent

developments. It is further submitted that the restoration of the

petitioner's A-Class registration was made only on 10.02.2026, i.e.,

much after the last date of submission of bids, and therefore the

petitioner was not eligible to participate in the tender process as per the

terms and conditions of the NIT. Learned State counsel thus submits

that the decision of the respondent authority in declaring the petitioner

technically disqualified is in strict conformity with the tender conditions

and does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the material available on record.

10. From the record it is not in dispute that the last date for

submission of the tender was 14.01.2026. It is also not disputed that on

the said date the petitioner's contractor registration stood downgraded

from Class-A to Class-B by virtue of the order dated 14.07.2025 passed

by the competent authority. The subsequent order passed by the Chief

Engineer on 10.02.2026 restoring the petitioner's A-Class registration

came into existence much after the last date of submission of bids.

11. It is a settled principle governing tender jurisprudence that the

eligibility of a bidder is required to be examined with reference to the

conditions stipulated in the tender document and the status of the

bidder as on the last date for submission of the bid. Subsequent events

occurring after the cut-off date cannot be taken into consideration for

determining the eligibility of a bidder. The tendering authority is bound

by the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender and cannot

relax or alter the eligibility criteria once the bidding process has

commenced.

12. In the present case, since the petitioner admittedly did not

possess A-Class registration as on the last date of submission of the

tender, the respondent authority cannot be faulted for treating the

petitioner as ineligible in the technical evaluation. The subsequent

restoration of the petitioner's A-Class registration on 10.02.2026 does

not confer any retrospective eligibility so as to entitle the petitioner to

participate in the tender process.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does

not find any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety in the

decision of the respondent authority in disqualifying the petitioner during

the technical evaluation stage. Interference in matters relating to

contractual and tender processes is limited and warranted only when

the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or in

violation of the tender conditions, which is not the case here.

14. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be

and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
                             Sd/-                                Sd/-
                  (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                 (Ramesh Sinha)
                            Judge                            Chief Justice




Brijmohan
 