Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Schroder Hydraulics Private ... vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation ... on 11 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:21965-DB
Digitally signed by NAFR
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.05.15
18:35:11 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5406 of 2025
1 - M/s Schroder Hydraulics Private Limited ( A Rgistered Private
Limited Company Under The Provision Of Companies Act ), Office At
No. 71/2, 2nd Floor, Plot No. 5 Vanur Taluk, Sri Mahakaleeshwar Nagar,
Irumbai, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu, Pin- 605111 Through- Its Director
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 ( Adhar No. 9685
4378 7301 ) R/o No. No. 71/2, 2nd Floor, Plot No. 5, Vanur Taluk,sri
Mahakaleeshwar Nagar, Irumbai, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu, Pin- 605111
... Petitioner(s)
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 Chhattisgarh Pin 492013
2 - The Executive Officer ( 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. ).
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.
... Respondent(s)
2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 4. : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5. : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/05/2026
1. Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4, Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by Petitioner No.1, a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, acting through its authorized representative, Petitioner No.2, challenging the action of the respondent authorities in issuance of Letter of Intent dated 12.09.2025 in favour of Respondent No.5 pursuant to E-Tender No. 03-03/TN-463/MP-552/24-25 [Rfx No. 8100042082] issued on 18.03.2025 for procurement of various types of brake units for hydraulic motors installed at CHP, 2 x 500 MW, ABVTPS, CSPGCL, Marwa. According to the petitioners, though the petitioner company was incorporated on 13.03.2023, it is an authorized channel partner of M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited, a reputed manufacturer of hydraulic motors under the brand name "Mascot Drives", and therefore participated in the tender process by submitting its bid along with all requisite documents, including authorization 3 certificate and claim for exemption from EMD and tender fees on account of the parent company being registered with NSIC. The petitioners contend that upon scrutiny of the bid documents, the respondent authorities treated the petitioner as technically qualified and thereafter informed the petitioner vide e-mail dated 01.07.2025 regarding conduct of Reverse Live Auction (RLA) scheduled on 04.07.2025.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that during the Reverse Live Auction held on 04.07.2025, the petitioner was reflected as Rank L-1 in all categories with a total bid value of Rs.72,09,400/- and the auction screen displayed the end time as 1:50:00 PM with the remaining time shown as "00:00:00 (Active)". However, immediately thereafter, while the auction status reflected "00:00:00 (ended)", the rank column allegedly became blank, giving rise to apprehension of a technical glitch in the bidding process. The petitioner immediately contacted the technical bidding team of the respondent authorities telephonically and was advised to submit an e-mail regarding the issue. Accordingly, representations/e-mails dated 04.07.2025 and 07.07.2025 were submitted requesting the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh reverse auction on the ground that due to the alleged technical glitch, the petitioner was deprived of a fair and proper opportunity to participate in the bidding process till its conclusion. Thereafter, further correspondence ensued between the parties on 08.07.2025, 10.07.2025, 12.07.2025, 14.07.2025 and 16.07.2025, wherein the petitioner repeatedly requested reconsideration and re-conduct of the 4 reverse auction, while the respondent authorities sought screenshots and advised the petitioner to contact the e-bidding help desk.
4. According to the petitioners, despite the aforesaid repeated representations highlighting the alleged technical irregularity in the Reverse Live Auction process, the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the impugned Letter of Intent dated 12.09.2025 in favour of Respondent No.5 at a total contract value of Rs.71,60,500/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court contending that the action of the respondent authorities in ignoring the petitioner's grievance and finalizing the tender process in favour of Respondent No.5 is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that 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, and the issuance of the impugned Letter of Intent without addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding the alleged technical glitch amounts to colorable exercise of power warranting interference by this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in proceeding with and finalizing the impugned tender process despite the occurrence of a serious technical glitch during the live bidding stage is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner was actively 5 participating in the bidding process and was the L-1 bidder immediately prior to the interruption caused by the technical malfunction in the e- tendering system. However, owing to the said interruption, which was beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner was deprived of a fair and meaningful opportunity to continue participation in the bidding process and submit further competitive bids. Learned counsel submits that the respondents were duty-bound to ensure a transparent, fair and uninterrupted bidding environment and their failure to do so has vitiated the entire tender process.
6. It is further submitted that immediately after the occurrence of the technical glitch, the petitioner submitted representations before the competent authorities specifically pointing out the interruption faced during the live bidding process and requested the respondents to take corrective measures before finalization of the tender. However, without considering or deciding the grievance raised by the petitioner and without conducting any proper inquiry into the alleged technical malfunction, the respondent authorities hurriedly proceeded to finalize the tender process and issue the Letter of Intent in favour of another bidder. According to the learned counsel, such conduct on the part of the respondents clearly demonstrates non-application of mind, procedural impropriety and violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner was denied equal and fair opportunity in a State-controlled contractual process. It is contended that the omission on the part of the respondents in not adjudicating upon the petitioner's representation prior to issuance of the LoI speaks volumes about the 6 arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power by the authorities concerned.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that although the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited, the Constitutional Courts are empowered to interfere where the decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, irrational, unfair or actuated by procedural impropriety. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC 651 wherein it has been held that judicial review is concerned not with the merits of the decision itself but with the fairness and legality of the decision-making process. It has been argued that the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgment, as the respondents failed to ensure a fair and transparent bidding mechanism and deprived the petitioner of a legitimate and equal opportunity to participate till the conclusion of the live bidding process. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned action of the respondents is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 opposed the writ petition and submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioner regarding occurrence of any technical glitch during the Reverse Live Auction are wholly baseless, unsupported by material evidence and contrary to the official records of the e-bidding system. It 7 has been submitted that after approval of the procurement proposal by the competent authority on 07.03.2025, Respondent No.3 issued E- Tender dated 18.03.2025 for procurement of various brake units for hydraulic motors installed at CHP, 2 x 500 MW, ABVTPS, CSPGCL, Marwa. Since no bidder participated initially, the last date for submission of bids was extended twice, firstly up to 22.04.2025 and thereafter up to 09.05.2025. Ultimately, only the petitioner and Respondent No.5 submitted their bids and after scrutiny, the price bids of both bidders were opened on 23.06.2025. Thereafter, on 01.07.2025, both bidders were duly informed through e-mail regarding conduct of Reverse Live Auction scheduled on 04.07.2025 between 11:00 AM and 01:00 PM with a specific stipulation regarding auto-extension of five minutes in the event any bid was submitted within the last five minutes of the scheduled closing time. Learned counsel submits that despite having knowledge of the scheduled auction, the petitioner on 03.07.2025 sought postponement of the auction citing certain unavoidable circumstances, which request was declined by Respondent No.3 on 04.07.2025 before commencement of the auction. It has been further submitted that both the petitioner and Respondent No.5 actively participated in the live auction and continuously revised their bids for all four items. As per the Live Auction Report, the last bid was submitted by Respondent No.5 at 01:40:33 PM on 04.07.2025, whereas the petitioner had submitted its final bid at 01:39:38 PM and thereafter failed to submit any lower bid within the extended five-minute period, resulting in 8 automatic closure of the auction strictly in accordance with the prescribed auction rules and tender conditions.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner raised allegations regarding technical malfunction only after lapse of nearly two hours from closure of the auction by sending an e- mail at 03:38 PM on 04.07.2025. Immediately upon receipt of the complaint, the e-bidding team requested the petitioner to furnish complete screenshots containing the system messages and complete chat window for technical analysis of the alleged issue. However, despite repeated communications dated 04.07.2025, 07.07.2025 and 08.07.2025, the petitioner failed to provide the complete screenshots and merely reiterated the allegation without supplying the requisite technical details necessary for examination of the grievance. It is submitted that the only screenshot relied upon by the petitioner did not contain the complete system message window and therefore no inference regarding any portal malfunction could be drawn therefrom. Learned counsel submits that Respondent No.3 independently sought clarification from the e-bidding team on 22.07.2025 regarding the alleged error, whereupon the e-bidding authorities categorically informed on 30.07.2025 that, as per the system logs, there was no issue either in the server or in the e-bidding portal during the entire auction period. Subsequently, upon directions issued after filing of the writ petition, the Executive Director, EITC, CSPDCL, Raipur again examined the matter and opined on 29.01.2026 that the display of Rank "1" in the screenshot relied upon by the petitioner could possibly be 9 attributable to network interruption at the bidder's end due to which the auction screen may not have been updated. Learned counsel submits that after due resolution of the complaint and completion of the tender process, work order dated 13.10.2025 had already been issued in favour of Respondent No.5 and substantial public interest is involved in timely procurement of the brake units required for operation of the thermal power plant. It has therefore been contended that the writ petition, founded merely on speculative allegations and unsupported technical assertions, deserves to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5 opposed the writ petition and submitted that the present petition has been filed by an unsuccessful bidder with an oblique motive to frustrate and derail a duly concluded tender process by raising false and belated allegations regarding the Reverse Live Auction conducted on 04.07.2025. It has been submitted that Respondent No.3 issued the tender dated 18.03.2025 for procurement of various types of brake units for hydraulic motors installed at CHP, 2 x 500 MW, ABVTPS, CSPGCL, Marwa, containing a provision for Reverse Live Auction. Since initially no bids were received, the last date for submission of bids was extended twice and ultimately the petitioner and Respondent No.5 participated in the process by submitting their respective bids before the extended last date i.e. 09.05.2025. Learned counsel submits that upon technical evaluation, both bidders were found technically qualified and were informed regarding conduct of Reverse Live Auction scheduled on 04.07.2025 from 11:00 AM to 01:00 PM. It has been specifically 10 contended that the auction rules clearly stipulated that if any bid was received within the last five minutes of the scheduled time, an automatic extension of five minutes would be activated and the process would continue so long as fresh bids were submitted within each extended period. According to Respondent No.5, both parties actively participated in the auction and continuously revised their bids in respect of all four tender items, resulting in repeated automatic extensions of the bidding time. It has been submitted that the final and lowest bid was submitted by Respondent No.5 at 01:40:33 PM, whereas the petitioner had submitted its last bid at 01:39:38 PM and thereafter failed to submit any further reduced bid within the permissible extended period of five minutes. Consequently, the auction concluded automatically in accordance with the prescribed rules and Respondent No.5 emerged as the successful bidder, pursuant to which the respondent authorities rightly issued Letter of Intent dated 12.09.2025 in its favour at the total contract value of Rs.71,60,500/-.
11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 further submitted that the allegations regarding technical malfunction in the e-bidding portal are wholly concocted and unsupported by any credible material. It has been argued that though the petitioner claims to have encountered an error during the auction, no such grievance was raised contemporaneously at the relevant time and the petitioner for the first time sent an e-mail nearly two hours after closure of the auction alleging technical issues in the portal. According to Respondent No.5, despite repeated opportunities and communications issued by the e-bidding team calling 11 upon the petitioner to furnish complete screenshots containing the system messages and complete chat window for proper analysis of the alleged issue, the petitioner deliberately failed to provide the same. Learned counsel submits that the screenshot relied upon by the petitioner was intentionally compressed and incomplete and omitted the top portion reflecting the last bid submitted by Respondent No.5 at 01:40:33 PM. It has further been contended that had the petitioner furnished the complete screenshot, the system time and message window appearing on the screen would have exposed the falsity of the allegations raised in the writ petition. Learned counsel also referred to the Live Auction Report and bid history obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to contend that the Reverse Live Auction remained active simultaneously for all four tender items and the last bid was duly submitted by Respondent No.5 at 01:40:33 PM without any interruption in the bidding process. It has therefore been submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court without clean hands and has suppressed material facts, including the fact that prior to the auction it had itself sought postponement of the Reverse Live Auction by e-mail dated 03.07.2025.
12. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 additionally submitted that after conclusion of the tender process and resolution of the complaint raised by the petitioner, supply order dated 13.10.2025 was issued in favour of Respondent No.5 and substantial steps had already been undertaken pursuant thereto. It has been contended that in furtherance of the supply order, Respondent No.5 had expedited manufacturing and 12 transported nearly 80% of the required brake units on 17.10.2025, supported by GST invoices, e-way bills and transporter communications placed on record. However, owing to the interim order subsequently passed by this Court, payments towards the supplied material have remained withheld, thereby seriously affecting the cash flow and operational capacity of Respondent No.5, which is stated to be an MSME organization. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is engaged in unfair business practices and is misusing the trade name and website of Schroder Hydraulics PTE LTD. despite merely being a separate entity incorporated in India, and proceedings in that regard are also stated to be pending before the High Court of Madras. It has thus been contended that the present writ petition is nothing but an attempt by an unsuccessful bidder to convert a commercial rivalry into a constitutional dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of speculative and manufactured grievances. According to Respondent No.5, no arbitrariness, mala fide action or procedural illegality can be attributed either to the respondent authorities or to the auction process and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.
13. In rejoinder, the petitioner submits that the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 itself establishes that the reverse live auction process suffered from a serious technical irregularity, inasmuch as despite the petitioner's last bid having been admittedly entered at 01:39:38 PM and the petitioner's screen reflecting "Rank-1" with the remaining time shown as "00:00:00" at 01:50:00 PM, the very next 13 screen at the same timestamp displayed the petitioner's rank as blank, thereby clearly indicating a system anomaly during the crucial closing stage of the RLA. The petitioner further submits that immediately upon noticing the discrepancy, prompt efforts were made to contact the e- bidding team and a complaint email was lodged without delay along with the available screenshots, and therefore the allegation regarding non-submission of complete screenshots is wholly misconceived, particularly when such complete system-generated message windows are not retrievable after completion of the RLA process. It is further submitted that the petitioner had consistently raised objections regarding the eligibility and past performance credentials of respondent No. 5 much prior to the auction process, however the respondent authorities failed to consider the same and proceeded with the tender in haste. In such circumstances, fairness, transparency and the principles governing public procurement required the respondent authorities to either investigate the technical glitch or conduct the RLA afresh, instead of mechanically accepting a vitiated auction process to the grave prejudice of the petitioner.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material annexed with the petition by the respective parties and their pleadings.
15. The principal grievance of the petitioners pertains to an alleged technical glitch during the Reverse Live Auction conducted on 04.07.2025 pursuant to the tender process initiated by the respondent 14 authorities for the procurement of brake units for hydraulic motors installed at CHP, ABVTPS, CSPGCL, and Marwa. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the tender process and was permitted to take part in the Reverse Live Auction after being found technically qualified. However, the entire challenge raised by the petitioners rests solely upon the assertion that immediately after the auction timer reflected "00:00:00", the ranking column became blank, which, according to the petitioner, indicated the occurrence of a technical malfunction in the system. Except for such bald assertion and certain screenshots relied upon by the petitioner, no cogent, independent or technical material has been brought on record to conclusively establish that the e-tendering portal had in fact malfunctioned or that the petitioner alone was prevented from participating further in the bidding process on account of any systemic defect attributable to the respondent authorities.
16. This Court finds considerable force in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that the tender process was conducted through an electronic platform governed by prescribed tender conditions and the Reverse Live Auction concluded in accordance with the stipulated procedure. Merely because the petitioner was reflected as L- 1 at a particular stage of the auction would not confer any indefeasible or vested right upon the petitioner to claim the award of the contract. In a competitive bidding process, the rankings are dynamic and subject to change till the closure of the auction. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate by any reliable material that the bidding process came to 15 an abrupt or premature end or that the auction system ceased to function for all participants. Significantly, no material has been produced to show that any other bidder had raised a similar grievance regarding the disruption of the auction process. In the absence of any substantive proof of actual technical failure affecting the integrity of the auction, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the entire tender process stood vitiated.
17. The record further reflects that upon receipt of representations submitted by the petitioner on various dates, the respondent authorities responded to the petitioner and sought screenshots and relevant particulars pertaining to the alleged glitch while also advising the petitioner to contact the e-bidding help desk. Thus, it cannot be said that the grievance raised by the petitioner was completely ignored by the authorities. Merely because the respondents did not accept the petitioner's request for re-conduct of the reverse auction would not by itself render the decision-making process arbitrary or mala fide. The petitioners have also not been able to establish any element of favoritism, bias or extraneous consideration in issuance of the impugned Letter of Intent in favour of Respondent No.5. The decision to proceed with the tender process and finalize the same in favour of the successful bidder appears to have been taken in administrative and commercial wisdom of the competent authority after conclusion of the auction process and evaluation of bids.
16
18. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is extremely limited. The Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions taken in commercial matters. Interference is warranted only when the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or so irrational that no reasonable authority acting fairly could have arrived at such a decision. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 (6) SCC 651, clearly postulate that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. In the present case, this Court does not find any material irregularity, procedural impropriety or arbitrariness of such magnitude so as to warrant interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. in para 94 of its judgment, it is held that:-
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.17
Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-
administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
19. The petitioner's grievance essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact regarding an alleged technical malfunction, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 in the absence of unimpeachable technical evidence. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the impugned Letter of Intent has already been issued in favour of Respondent No.5 and the tender process has attained finality. Interference at this stage, particularly on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of a technical glitch, would not only unsettle a concluded contractual process but would also adversely affect public interest and administrative certainty in matters relating to public procurement. The Courts have consistently held that unless overwhelming public interest or manifest arbitrariness is demonstrated, the sanctity of completed tender processes ought not to be disturbed. 18 The petitioners, despite alleging a violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, have failed to establish infringement of any enforceable legal or fundamental right warranting exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction by this Court.
20. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned Letter of Intent dated 12.09.2025 issued in favour of Respondent No.5. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok