M/S Genius Hrtech Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREETKAUR Date: 2026.04.06 10:23:31 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:15299-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1441 of 2026

¶7

Teamlease Services Limited Through Its Authorized RepresentativeBhushan Gupta, Office At- The Qube, B- 104, 1st Floor, Marol Village, Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai.

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax And Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶11

2 - Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

WPC No. 1446 of 2026

¶14

M/s Genius Hrtech Limited (Formerly Known As Genius Consultants Limited), Through Its Authorized Representative Shashwat, Banerjee, Office At Unit No. 507, And 508, 5th Floor, Elegance Tower, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi.

¶15

--- Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax And Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

2

¶19

2 - Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

--- Respondent(s)

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Add. A.G. and Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶25

02.04.2026

¶26

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard

¶27

Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents/State and Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

2. The petition WPC No. 1441/2026 has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

¶29

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the decision taken by respondent No.1 dated 23.03.2026 technically disqualifying the petitioner, whereby the petitioner's bid has been held to be technically disqualified and further directing the respondent No.1 to decide the representation (Annexure P/5) submitted by the petitioner on 23.03.2026, as per the requirement of GeM portal (Annexure P/4),

¶30

3

¶31

within a time frame.

¶32

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), to hold and direct the Office of respondent authorities particularly respondent No.1 and 2 to accept the bid of petitioner has technically valid and then open the financial bid submitted by the petitioner or in the alternative prayer by setting aside the entire bid in Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7263566 (dated 19.02.2026) (Annexure P/1) and also to quash the entire tender.

¶33

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal.

¶34

10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶35

3. The petition WPC No. 1446/2026 has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

¶36

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the decision taken by by respondent No.1 dated 23.03.2026 technically disqualifying the petitioner, whereby the petitioner's bid has been held to be technically disqualified and further directing the respondent No.1 to decide the representation (Annexure P/5) submitted by the petitioner on 24.03.2026, as per the requirement of GeM portal (Annexure P/4), within a time frame.

¶37

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), to hold and direct the Office of respondent authorities particularly respondent No.1 and 2 to accept the bid of petitioner has technically valid and then open the financial bid submitted by the petitioner or in the alternative

¶38

4

¶39

prayer by setting in bid entire aside the GEM/2026/B/7263566 (dated Bid No. 19.02.2026) (Annexure P/1) and also to quash the entire tender.

¶40

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal.

¶41

10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumsta nces of the case, may also be granted.”

¶42

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, being companies duly incorporated under the Companies Act and represented through their authorized signatories, are entitled to the protection of fundamental rights, including the right to equality and fair treatment in public procurement processes. It is contended that pursuant to the tender dated 19.02.2026 bearing Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7263566 floated by respondent No.1 on the GeM portal along with the CSMCL tender document, both petitioners participated in the bidding process within the stipulated time and were thereafter declared technically disqualified on 23.03.2026 on alleged deficiencies, namely, in WPC No.1446/2026 for non-submission of a valid labour license for more than 1000 labourers and in WPC No.1441/2026 for nonsubmission of turnover certificate, proper experience certificate and no near relative certificate. It is further submitted that the GeM portal itself provided a specific representation window enabling bidders to cure such defects, pursuant to which the

¶43

5

¶44

petitioners duly submitted all requisite documents including labour license, CA certificate, experience certificates and other supporting materials within time, yet the respondents failed to consider the same and mechanically upheld the disqualification. It is also urged that the petitioners had already furnished relevant experience certificates, including that issued by Dainik Bhaskar Group, demonstrating their capability and compliance with tender requirements, and thus fully satisfied the eligibility criteria and technical specifications under Clause 10.2.1 of the tender document, but despite such compliance, their bids were arbitrarily rejected without proper evaluation, even prior to opening of the financial bids, which action is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of fairness, transparency and equal opportunity in State tender processes.

¶45

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the action of the respondents in disregarding the representations submitted by the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the very procedure prescribed under the tender conditions and the GeM portal framework. It is contended that the GeM portal itself expressly provides a representation window, clearly stipulating that the technical evaluation status may change upon consideration of such representations, thereby conferring a valuable right upon bidders to rectify any alleged deficiencies, and in the present case, both petitioners, within the stipulated

¶46

6

¶47

time, duly availed such opportunity by submitting comprehensive representations along with all requisite documents, including valid labour licence, Chartered Accountant certificate of turnover, experience certificates and other mandatory declarations, thereby curing the alleged defects pointed out by the respondents. However, despite such compliance, the respondents failed to consider the representations in a fair, objective and reasoned manner and mechanically upheld the disqualification without assigning any cogent reasons, which vitiates the entire decisionmaking process and renders the same violative of principles of natural justice, fairness and transparency, as the respondents were under a legal obligation to consider and decide the representations before finalizing the technical evaluation, particularly when the financial bids were yet to be opened.

¶48

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed, as the petitioners were rightly disqualified during the technical evaluation strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document as well as the applicable guidelines governing the procurement process on the GeM portal.

¶49

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2- Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited submits that the entire procedure has been conducted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bid document and applicable rules, and no

¶50

7

¶51

illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the respondents. It is contended that pursuant to the technical disqualification of the petitioners, the representations submitted by them through the GeM portal were duly taken into consideration by the competent authority and, after proper scrutiny of the documents and compliance with the tender requirements, the same were rejected on 24.03.2026. It is further submitted that upon finalization of the technical evaluation and rejection of the representations, the tender process was carried forward in accordance with law and the work order has already been issued on 30.03.2026 in favour of the successful bidder, thereby conferring vested contractual rights, and at this advanced stage, any interference by this Court would seriously prejudice third-party rights and disrupt a concluded tender process. It is also urged that the petitioners, having failed to comply with the mandatory eligibility conditions at the time of submission of bids, cannot now seek to improve their case by relying upon documents submitted subsequently, and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶52

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶53

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the tender in question was governed by specific eligibility conditions and technical

¶54

8

¶55

parameters, which were required to be strictly complied with at the time of submission of bids. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were declared technically disqualified on account of deficiencies in the documents submitted along with their bids, and though a representation window was provided on the GeM portal, the same cannot be construed as conferring an absolute right to cure substantive defects or to supplement essential eligibility documents at a later stage. From the submission advanced by respondent No.2, it is evident that the representations submitted by the petitioners were duly considered by the competent authority and were rejected on 24.03.2026, and thereafter the tender process was taken to its logical conclusion with issuance of work order on 30.03.2026, thereby creating third-party rights.

¶56

10. We are of the view that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself, and unless the action of the respondents is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions, interference is not warranted. In the present case, no such infirmity is made out, as the evaluation appears to have been conducted in accordance with the tender conditions and uniformly applied to all bidders, and therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

¶57

9

¶58

11. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing findings and considerations, both the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed .

¶59

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶60

Manpreet

M/S Genius Hrtech Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Genius Hrtech Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinkee Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Bothra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kapil Chandrakant Shelke Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Jagrit Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Puneshwar Kumar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aishwarya Singh Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh