1

2026:CGHC:6501-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 412 of 2026

Natwar Lal Agrawal S/o Shri Harikishan Agrawal Aged About 64 Years

R/o Durga Medical , Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Health

And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal

Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Service Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing

Director, Commercial Premises 4th Floor, Sector- 27 Naya Raipur Atal

Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

3 - Hitesh Suryvani S/o Jarachand Suryvani R/o Durga Chowk Main

Road Pendra District- Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner :Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 :Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government

Advocate

For Respondent No.2 :Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate

For Respondent No.3 :Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate

2

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

0 5 .02.2026

1.Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government

Advocate, appearing for State/respondent No.1, Mr. Raghvendra

Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well

as Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3.

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

following relief(s):-

“10.1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the

action of the respondents in disqualifying the

petitioner's bid and in awarding the contract

under Tender No. 176873 dated 23.09.2025 to

Private Respondent;

10.2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to open and evaluate the

petitioner's financial bid and to finalize the

tender strictly in accordance with law and the

tender conditions;

10.3. Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in

the interest of justice.”

3.Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner is a B-

Class registered civil contractor, regularly engaged in execution of

Government construction works through participation in public

3

tenders floated by various State authorities. Respondent No.1 –

Chhattisgarh State Medical Services Corporation Limited invited

an e-tender dated 23.09.2025 for the work of “Construction of

Primary Health Care Centre Kotba to 50-Bedded Hospital at

Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur including Internal Water

Supply, Sanitary Fittings and Electrification Works”, bearing

Tender No. 176873, with an estimated project cost of ₹400.98

lakhs. The bid submission period commenced on 30.09.2025 at

17:30 hours and closed on 23.10.2025 at 17:30 hours, with the

scheduled date for opening of bids fixed as 24.10.2025. The

petitioner, strictly in accordance with the tender terms and

conditions, duly submitted his bid on 13.10.2025, along with all

requisite documents, certificates and eligibility credentials. The

petitioner quoted 9.9% below the estimated cost, thereby offering

the most competitive and financially advantageous bid to the

State.

4.However, on 05.01.2026 at about 17:14:14 hours, when the

financial bids were opened, it was reflected on the portal that one

Hitesh Suryvanshi was declared the lowest bidder with a quoted

rate of 9.2200% below, despite the petitioner having quoted 9.9%

below, which was lower and more beneficial to the Government.

To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, it was revealed

that the financial bid of the petitioner was never opened at all,

despite being the lowest bidder.

4

5.Later on the same day, i.e., 05.01.2026 at around 05:40 PM, the

petitioner received an email from the respondent-department

stating that his bid had been disqualified/rejected on the vague

and cryptic ground that “clarification has not been given by the

bidder”.

6.It is further pertinent to mention that the petitioner had also

participated in another tender of the same department bearing

Tender No. 176875 for the work of Construction of Staff Quarters

at 100-Bedded MCH Building, Raigarh District, which was

submitted on the very same date, i.e., 13.10.2025, using the same

set of documents, certificates and eligibility credentials. In the said

Tender No. 176875, the petitioner’s bid was found technically

valid, his financial bid was opened, and he was not disqualified,

thereby clearly establishing that the documents submitted by the

petitioner were complete, valid and fully in consonance with the

tender conditions. The selective and unexplained rejection of the

petitioner’s bid in Tender No. 176873, while accepting the very

same documents in Tender No. 176875, exposes the arbitrary,

discriminatory and mala fide approach of the respondent-

authorities.

7.Due to the illegal exclusion of the petitioner, the respondents have

awarded the contract to a higher bidder, causing direct financial

loss to the public exchequer, unjust enrichment to Respondent

No.3, and grave prejudice to the petitioner.

5

8.Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner had quoted 9.9% below the estimated cost,

which was demonstrably lower and more beneficial to the public

exchequer than the quote of the private respondent at 9.2200%

below; yet, in a wholly arbitrary manner, the petitioner’s financial

bid was deliberately not opened, thereby defeating the very object

and purpose of fair, transparent and competitive public tendering.

It is submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s bid on the

vague and cryptic ground that “clarification has not been given by

the bidder” is legally unsustainable, as no notice, query, deficiency

memo or opportunity of explanation was ever afforded to the

petitioner prior to such rejection. It is further contended that the

respondents have acted in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner

by accepting the very same set of documents and eligibility

credentials submitted by the petitioner in Tender No.176875, while

rejecting them in Tender No.176873 without any rational,

reasonable or lawful basis, thereby squarely violating Article 14 of

the Constitution of India. The impugned disqualification is not

supported by any reasoned or speaking order and fails to disclose

what clarification was allegedly required or in what manner the

petitioner was found deficient, rendering the decision opaque,

arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

9.Mr. Mishra further submits that public authorities conducting

tenders are bound by the constitutional mandate of fairness,

transparency, equality and non-arbitrariness, and the respondents’

6

action in excluding the lowest valid bidder and awarding the work

to a higher bidder is ex-facie contrary to settled principles

governing public contracts and the doctrine of level playing field.

The illegal exclusion of the petitioner has resulted in avoidable

loss to the State exchequer and undue enrichment of the private

respondent, and the impugned action suffers from clear non-

application of mind, arbitrariness and favouritism, warranting

interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10.On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned

Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1

opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and

submits that mere submission of a lower financial quote does not

confer any vested or indefeasible right upon the petitioner to have

his bid accepted or even opened, and the tendering authority is

fully empowered to reject a bid found technically non-responsive

in terms of the tender conditions. It is submitted that the petitioner

failed to furnish the requisite clarification as required under the

tender process, and therefore his bid was rightly disqualified at

the technical stage. The decision was taken in a bona fide

manner, strictly in accordance with the tender terms, without any

arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides. It is further submitted

that acceptance of the petitioner’s documents in another tender

cannot be treated as determinative for the present tender, each

tender being an independent process. In view of the limited scope

7

of judicial review in contractual and tender matters, no

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

warranted.

11.Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 submits that the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed at the threshold, as the petitioner has neither

challenged the final disqualification communication dated

05.01.2026 nor sought any relief for quashment thereof. It is

submitted that the petitioner was duly intimated, first vide email

dated 04.12.2025, to furnish clarification regarding non-

submission and non-disclosure of mandatory details in Annexure

A-2, and thereafter vide communication dated 05.01.2026,

informing him that in the absence of response, his bid had been

found technically unresponsive and ineligible. Despite due

opportunity, the petitioner deliberately failed to respond, and

therefore no illegality can be attributed to the respondents.

12.Mr. Pradhan further submits that the petitioner has suppressed

material facts and made false averments before this Court by

alleging that no opportunity was granted. On the contrary, all

communications were sent to the email ID expressly furnished by

the petitioner himself in the bid documents, strictly in terms of

Clause 6 under the “Note” in the tender conditions. The

petitioner’s own documents reveal that Annexure A-2 was left

blank (“nirank”), unsigned, and misleading, despite the petitioner

8

having ongoing works with the PWD department, rendering the

consequential Annexure A-3 affidavit defective and false. Such

suppression and misrepresentation disentitle the petitioner to any

equitable relief under Article 226.

13.It is further submitted by Mr. Pradhan that reliance on acceptance

of documents in Tender No.176875 is wholly misconceived, as

negative parity cannot be claimed, each tender being an

independent process evaluated by separate technical committees,

particularly where bid capacity and ongoing commitments

materially affect eligibility. The petitioner cannot seek to cure his

own defects by relying upon an alleged lapse in another tender.

14.Mr. Pradhan also submits that the work in question relates to

construction of a hospital, an infrastructure project, in respect of

which a work order has already been issued on 28.01.2026. In

view of Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as well as

settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NG

Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC

127, Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Transport

Supply & Undertaking (BEST) & Ors., (2023) 19 SCC 671 and

Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways & Anr. ,

(2021) 16 SCC 808, no interference is warranted at this advanced

stage in the absence of mala fides or perversity. The petitioner,

having approached this Court without clean hands and after

remaining unresponsive during the tender process, is not entitled

9

to any relief and the petition deserves dismissal.

15.Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3

submits that he adopts in toto the reply filed by respondent No.2 –

Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited – and denies

all allegations levelled by the petitioner with regard to the

allotment of the tender and award of work in favour of the

answering respondent. It is submitted that the answering

respondent participated in the tender process, was found

technically qualified, emerged as the successful lowest bidder,

and thereafter a work order dated 28.01.2026 was lawfully issued

in its favour, pursuant to which an agreement was also executed

on the same date. The tender process has thus attained finality

and the contract has progressed substantially.

16.Mr. Pali further submits that the petitioner has approached this

Court after suppressing material facts, particularly with regard to

its own ineligibility. As per Annexure-A/2, the petitioner was

mandatorily required to disclose details of ongoing works and

existing commitments, supported by an affidavit under Annexure-

A/3. However, the petitioner deliberately mentioned the details as

“nirank”/blank despite admittedly having ongoing works with the

PWD Department. Further, Annexure-A/2 was left unsigned,

rendering the consequential affidavit under Annexure-A/3

defective and misleading. On this ground alone, the rejection of

the petitioner’s bid was just, proper and in accordance with law.

10

17.It is submitted by Mr. Pali that suppression of such material facts

disentitles the petitioner to any equitable relief under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Jayaram v. Bangalore

Development Authority, (2022) 12 SCC 815, wherein it has

been categorically held that a writ petitioner must approach the

Court with clean hands and that suppression of material facts is

sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition at the threshold.

18.Mr. Pali contends that the project in question pertains to

construction of a 50-bedded hospital, which squarely falls within

the ambit of an infrastructure project. In view of Section 41(ha) of

the Specific Relief Act, 1963, no injunction or interference is

permissible which may impede or delay such infrastructure

projects. Strong reliance is placed upon the decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in NG Projects Ltd. (supra), Tata

Motors Ltd. (supra) and Galaxy Transport Agencies (supra),

which consistently caution constitutional courts against

interference in tender matters, especially after issuance of work

order, in the absence of mala fides or perversity. It is therefore

submitted that the instant writ petition, being devoid of merits,

suffering from suppression of material facts, and seeking

interference in a concluded infrastructure contract, deserves to be

dismissed at the threshold in the interest of justice and public

interest.

11

19.By filing a rejoinder-affidavit, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that the communication relied upon by

respondent No.2 vide letter dated 05.01.2026 was never properly

served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the entire bid

submission process, including all prior communications, was

undertaken through the email ID natwarlalagrawal2@gmail.com,

which was consistently used by the respondents for tender-related

correspondence. However, the crucial communication seeking

clarification regarding Annexure-A/2 was deliberately sent to a

different email ID, namely vineshagrawal12@gmail.com, which

was not used for submission or correspondence during the tender

process. Such selective communication clearly discloses mala

fide intention on the part of Respondent No.2 aimed at excluding

the petitioner and accommodating the private respondent. He

further submits that the objection raised by Respondent No.2

regarding non-challenge to the disqualification communication

dated 05.01.2026 is misconceived. The relief sought in the writ

petition specifically assails the action of disqualification of the

petitioner and the consequential award of contract under Tender

No.176873 dated 23.09.2025, which necessarily includes and

subsumes the impugned communication.

20.It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that the allegation regarding

suppression of ongoing works is factually incorrect and

misleading. Though reliance is placed upon a work order allegedly

issued on 06.10.2025, the same was neither communicated nor

12

delivered to the petitioner prior to 13.10.2025, the date of

submission of bid. The petitioner was thus wholly unaware of the

issuance of the said work order. The receipt evidencing dispatch

and delivery of the work order dated 06.10.2025 is annexed as

ANNEXURE P/8, which clearly establishes that no ongoing work

existed as on the date of bid submission. He submits that the

expression “ongoing work” necessarily implies actual execution

and physical commencement of work at site, and not a mere

issuance of a Letter of Acceptance or formation of a contract. As

on 13.10.2025, no work had commenced on the ground, and

therefore the petitioner’s disclosure of “nil / nirank” was true, bona

fide and in conformity with the tender requirements.

21.It is contended by Mr. Mishra that despite alleging defects in the

bid documents, respondent No.2 has itself assessed the bid

capacity of the petitioner in accordance with Appendix-I of the

tender document, which demonstrates that the petitioner had

complied with all prescribed parameters and eligibility conditions.

He further submits that the explanation offered by Respondent

No.2 with respect to Tender No.176875 is wholly untenable. The

petitioner’s bid having been accepted for technical evaluation

under the said tender using identical documents exposes the

arbitrary and discriminatory conduct of respondent No.2 in

selectively excluding the petitioner in the present tender, solely to

prevent him from participating in the financial bid despite being

the lowest bidder.

13

22.In view of the aforesaid submissions, the pleadings on record, and

the clear arbitrariness demonstrated by the respondents, Mr.

Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the writ petition deserves to be allowed with consequential reliefs.

23.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at

considerable length and have bestowed our anxious consideration

to the pleadings, the rejoinder-affidavit, and the documents placed

on record.

24.From a careful scrutiny of the record, it emerges that the

petitioner’s bid was rejected at the technical stage on the ground

of alleged non-submission of clarification in respect of Annexure-

A/2. However, it stands demonstrably established that the said

communication seeking clarification was dispatched by

respondent No.2 to an e-mail address which was neither

disclosed by the petitioner for the purposes of submission of the

bid nor used at any stage of the tender process. On the contrary,

all correspondence prior thereto, including communication relating

to submission of the bid and other tender-related information, had

admittedly been exchanged through a different e-mail ID of the

petitioner. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by

respondent No.2 as to why, in deviation of its own consistent

course of conduct, the most crucial communication—having

serious civil consequences—was sent to an unrelated e-mail

address. Such a lapse, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be

14

termed as a mere procedural irregularity but reflects a failure to

adhere to the basic standards of fairness and transparency

expected of a public authority.

25.The record further reveals that the petitioner had quoted 9.9%

below the estimated cost, which was more competitive and

financially advantageous to the State exchequer as compared to

the quote of the private respondent at 9.2200% below. The

petitioner, therefore, prima facie stood as the lowest bidder.

Exclusion of such a bidder at the technical stage, without affording

him a fair and effective opportunity to clarify the alleged

deficiency, strikes at the very root of the object of competitive

public tendering, namely, securing the best value for public money

through a transparent and non-discriminatory process.

26.This Court also finds substance in the grievance of the petitioner

that the same set of documents and eligibility credentials were

accepted by respondent No.2 in Tender No.176875, whereas the

very same were rejected in Tender No.176873, without any

cogent, rational or intelligible basis. Such differential treatment, in

the absence of a reasoned justification, clearly attracts the vice of

arbitrariness and offends the mandate of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. The impugned disqualification is further

vitiated by the absence of a reasoned or speaking order, as

neither the precise nature of the alleged deficiency nor the

clarification purportedly required from the petitioner has been

15

disclosed on record.

27.As regards the contention relating to non-disclosure of ongoing

works, this Court notes that the work order relied upon by

respondent No.2 is stated to have been issued on 06.10.2025

and, as per the material placed on record, was not communicated

to the petitioner as on the date of submission of the bid in

question. In any case, mere issuance or acceptance of a bid or a

work order, without commencement of actual execution at site,

cannot ipso facto be equated with an “ongoing work” in its strict

and practical sense, unless the tender conditions expressly

provide otherwise. The action of respondent No.2, therefore, also

suffers from non-application of mind to the factual position

prevailing on the relevant date.

28.It is trite law that although the scope of judicial review in tender

matters is limited and the Court does not sit as an appellate

authority over administrative decisions, the Court is nonetheless

duty-bound to examine the decision-making process to ensure

that it is free from arbitrariness, mala fides, discrimination and

procedural impropriety. In the present case, the manner in which

the petitioner has been excluded from consideration reveals a

clear infraction of the principles governing fair play in public

procurement and the doctrine of level playing field.

29.At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that the

contract pursuant to the tender has already been awarded and is

16

stated to be under execution. Interference at this stage by setting

aside the tender process or the contract awarded may not be in

larger public interest and may result in further complications and

delays in execution of public work. The Court, therefore, deems it

appropriate to mould the relief in a manner that balances the

competing interests of justice to the petitioner and the public

interest.

30.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioner has been subjected to arbitrary

and unfair treatment by respondent No.2, resulting in denial of a

fair opportunity to participate in the financial bid and causing him

prejudice. Such wrongful exclusion warrants compensatory relief.

31.Accordingly, while disposing of the writ petition, respondent No.2

is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

only) as compensation to the petitioner. The said amount shall be

paid within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a

certified copy of this order. In case of default, the amount shall

carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of expiry

of the stipulated period till actual payment.

32.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Anu