Facts of the Case

Deepani Construction, a proprietorship construction firm from Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, participated in an e-procurement tender floated by Municipal Council Janjgir Naila on 11 May 2023 for widening a C.C. Road, estimated at Rs. 131.61 lakh.

The tender required bidders to submit certain documents both online and offline (by speed post), including GST registration certificates, PAN, and a mandatory sworn affidavit in a prescribed format (Annexure-13).

The petitioner's offline envelope was opened on 9 June 2023 and, according to the Municipal Council, did not contain the mandatory Annexure-13 affidavit; consequently, its technical and financial bid was not considered, and the tender was awarded to another bidder, Shivam Enterprises, on 1 September 2023.

The petitioner contended it had in fact submitted the affidavit and alleged that the envelope was opened in its absence and the document went missing, and that the disqualification of three of five bidders violated the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules' requirement of a minimum of three eligible bidders for the financial round.

The State submitted that the petitioner had delayed in challenging its disqualification (of 13 June 2023) and the subsequent work order (of 1 September 2023), without adequate explanation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner's technical disqualification from the tender for allegedly missing a mandatory affidavit was arbitrary and warranted judicial interference.
  2. Whether the delay between the disqualification and the filing of the writ petition disentitled the petitioner to relief.
  3. The extent to which a writ court may interfere in matters of commercial tender evaluation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had duly submitted the affidavit along with its other documents, and its disqualification on the ground of a missing affidavit was false and frivolous.
  • The respondent Municipal Council acted arbitrarily and in violation of natural justice by opening the offline envelope without proper notice and by favouring the successful bidder.
  • Only two of five bidders were taken to the financial round, contrary to the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, which required a minimum of three eligible bidders.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner's envelope, when opened, did not contain the mandatory Annexure-13 affidavit, justifying its disqualification under the tender conditions.
  • The petitioner delayed challenging both the disqualification (June 2023) and the eventual work order (September 2023) without explanation, and the petition should fail on the ground of delay alone.
  • No specific defect in the process of opening the envelope was substantiated.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (2023), the Division Bench reiterated that writ courts must exercise considerable restraint in interfering with commercial and tender-related decisions of the State, absent clear arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality.
  • The Court found the petitioner had indeed delayed in challenging its disqualification and the subsequent award of work, without adequate explanation for the delay.
  • It also found no substance in the contention that inadequate notice was given before opening the petitioner's offline envelope.
  • Concluding that no gross or palpable illegality had been shown, the Court declined to interfere in the tender process and dismissed the writ petition.

Important Clarification

This is a public-procurement/tender-law decision applying settled Supreme Court restraint on judicial review of commercial tender evaluations — GST registration was simply one of several standard documents a bidder had to submit as part of the tender paperwork, and no GST-law question was involved or decided.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction), under which the petition was filed.
  • Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 — the procurement rules governing minimum bidder requirements, cited by the petitioner.
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — the petitioner's GST Registration Certificate was one of several mandatory tender-submission documents, not an issue in dispute.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioner, Deepani Construction — the writ petition was dismissed, and the tender award to the respondent bidder was left undisturbed.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
  • Case No.: WPC No. 4431 of 2023
  • Coram: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
  • Date of Order: 10 October 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.