Chattisgarh High Court
M/S R. B. Construction vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
2026:CGHC:11393-DB
by SAGRIKA
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.03.16
14:35:29 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1000 of 2026
M/s R. B. Construction Through Its Proprietor/partner Babu Lal Jaiswal S/o Late
Shri Rameshwar Jaiswal, Aged About 64 Years, Occupation- Civil Contractor, R/o
Village- Sonthi (Champa) Tahsil- Champa, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Chief Engineer Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Sirpur
Bhawan Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Superintendent Engineer Panchayat And Rural Development Department,
Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - The Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Division- Janjgir, Civil And
Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek for the following relief(s):
"(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased.
to call the entire record from the respondent authorities.
(ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of the advertisement No.115/ Tender/Rural Engineering Service/2025-26 dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) published for inviting the tender No. 184198 for the construction work of the Zila Panchayat Bhawan, Sakti with Electrical work at Village Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and direct the concern respondent may be taken appropriate step in the Tender No. 182266 which has already been invited by concern respondent authorities for same work. 3
(iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concern respondent authorities may not be changed any terms and condition of the tender, when proceedings has to be going on experience certificate of the petitioner firm may be consider as per provision of the earlier advertisement dated 23/12/2025 or advertisement dated 21/01/2026.
(iv) Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner."
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the partner of M/s R.B. Construction and engaged in civil construction works in the State of Chhattisgarh, participated in a tender process initiated by the respondent authorities vide advertisement dated 23.12.2025 for construction of Zila Panchayat Bhawan, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa. After submission of bids by eight participants including the petitioner, the said tender was cancelled on 21.01.2026 without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, a fresh tender for the same work was issued on the same date, in which nine participants including the petitioner submitted their bids. During the tender proceedings, the petitioner was declared disqualified vide notice dated 09.02.2026 on the ground relating to experience certificate, to which the petitioner submitted a 4 reply and objection on 10.02.2026 explaining the compliance of requirements and also raising grievance regarding irregularities in the tender process. However, without considering the petitioner's explanation and in violation of the prescribed tender procedure, the respondent authorities later informed through email that the petitioner along with other firms had been disqualified.
4. Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that, the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the earlier tender without assigning any valid reason and thereafter issuing a fresh tender for the same work, followed by declaring the petitioner firm disqualified in an arbitrary manner, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. The petitioner firm, being an A-Class Civil Contractor, had duly fulfilled all the eligibility conditions and submitted the required documents including a valid experience certificate, however the same was not properly scrutinized by the authorities. Further, the envelopes of the participants were opened without their presence and the petitioner was declared disqualified without affording any proper opportunity of hearing, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the respondent authorities have allegedly altered the interpretation of tender conditions during the course of proceedings, which is impermissible in law and amounts to misuse of the tender process to favour a particular contractor. Hence, the entire tender proceedings initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 115/Tender/Rural Engineering Service/2025-26 dated 21.01.2026 for Tender No. 184198 relating to construction of Zila 5 Panchayat Bhawan, Sakti with electrical work are liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that, the action of the respondent authorities is legal, proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender as well as the established procedure governing public procurement. It is submitted that the authorities are well within their administrative powers to cancel a tender process and issue a fresh tender in the interest of transparency, fairness and effective execution of public work. The earlier tender was cancelled as part of administrative decision and no vested right accrues in favour of any bidder merely by participating in the tender process. By the corrigendum dated 24.12.2025, the additional condition was added in the NIT that the bidder should have possessed the experience certificate of completion of work of single building for value of Rs. 2 Crore, in last 3 financial years, however, the petitioner's experience certificate shows the multiple building construction experience, therefore, he has been disqualified. It is further submitted that the petitioner firm was declared disqualified strictly on the basis of non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria and tender conditions, particularly with regard to the required experience certificate, after due scrutiny by the competent authority. The allegations of arbitrariness, violation of principles of natural justice and favouritism are wholly baseless and denied. The tender proceedings were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and in public interest for 6 ensuring proper execution of the construction work. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.
6. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the material annexed with the petition.
7. It transpires that the requirement of experience certificate with respect to completion work of single building of value of Rs. 2 Crore within last 3 financial year, which was added in the NIT on 24.12.2025. Thereafter, the second call was made on 21.01.2026, the petitioner's experience certificate with respect to multiple building construction work and not a single building work.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 vide judgment dated 19.05.2023 held as follows :
"48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today 7 many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 vide judgment dated 19.05.2023 held as follows :
"48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and 8 are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489)
52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at this 9 stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is evident from a three-
Judge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.
53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the 10 larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere.
54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes."
9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Tata Motors Ltd (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the present matter. It is well settled that participation in a tender process does not confer any vested right upon a bidder and the State or its authorities are competent to 11 cancel or modify the tender proceedings in administrative interest. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness, mala fide intention or violation of statutory provisions on the part of the respondent authorities. The decision to cancel the earlier tender and to issue a fresh tender falls within the domain of administrative discretion of the authorities. Further, the petitioner firm was declared disqualified upon scrutiny of the documents in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender. The scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited and the Court ordinarily does not interfere unless the decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law, which is not established in the present case.
10. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika