Contractor challenged rejection of its technical bid in a road construction tender without stated reasons. The court held no arbitrariness or mala fides was made out, noting the bid failed prescribed formats and concealed blacklisting, and dismissed the petition citing restrained judicial review in tender matters.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CGHC010221392026 2026:CGHC:27638-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2842 of 2026
M/s Ashok Kumar Mittal Through Its Proprietor Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o Pirogilal Aged About 62 Years A Class Contractor R/o H I G - 02 M.P. Nagar Niharika Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,
2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba Saket Bhawan I T I Chowk Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh,
3 - Assistant Engineer Municipal Corporation, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh,
4 - Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh,
5 - Superintending Engineer Municipal Corporation, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh
VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.07 19:04:06 +0530
6 - Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. Office At Ground Floor Babla Complex G.E. Road Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
2
| For Petitioner | : Mr. Prince Agrawal, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1/State | : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy A.G. |
| For Respondents No. 2 to 5 | : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate |
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06/07/2026
ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent authorities whereby the technical bid submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of NIT No. 332/2026, System Tender No. 188571 (2nd Call), for the work of construction of "Gaurav Path Four-Lane B.T. Road from CSEB Chowk to Jain Chowk to ITI Chowk to Kosabadi Chowk, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)" has been rejected during the Part-I Evaluation Process without assigning any reason and without passing any speaking order (Annexure P/1) .
iii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to forthwith disclose, communicate and furnish to the petitioner the complete reasons, evaluation report, noting sheets and all materials forming the basis of rejection of the petitioner's technical bid.
iv. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to reconsider and re-
3
evaluate the petitioner's technical bid strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender.
v. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing all consequential actions taken pursuant to the illegal rejection of the petitioner's technical bid, including the financial bid comparison proceedings and declaration of L-1 bidder, to the extent they have been undertaken without lawful consideration of the petitioner's bid.
vi. May kindly be pleased to cancel and set aside the award, selection, approval, acceptance or any consequential work order, if issued, in favour of Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to the impugned tender process, the same being founded upon an illegal rejection of the petitioner's bid.
vii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to conduct the tender process afresh from the stage of technical evaluation after duly considering the petitioner's bid in accordance with law and the tender conditions.
viii. Award costs of the present petition in favour of the petitioner.
ix. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
4
Call), dated 07.04.2026, inviting bids for construction of the "Gaurav Path Four-Lane B.T. Road from CSEB Chowk to Jain Chowk to ITI Chowk to Kosabadi Chowk, Korba", having an estimated contract value of ₹3,356.30 lakhs. The petitioner submitted its technical and financial bid along with all requisite documents, declarations, certificates and the prescribed Earnest Money Deposit within the stipulated time, asserting that it fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the tender document. However, on 02.06.2026, the petitioner received an SMS communication informing that its technical bid had been rejected during the Part-I evaluation process. According to the petitioner, neither the SMS communication nor the e-procurement portal disclosed any reason or deficiency for such rejection. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted representations dated 02.06.2026, 03.06.2026 and 04.06.2026 requesting the respondent authorities to disclose the reasons for rejection and furnish the evaluation records, but no response was forthcoming.
5
undertaking. It is further pleaded that the alleged HSCL blacklisting was confined only to participation in tenders floated by HSCL and its group entities and did not amount to a blanket prohibition against participation in all government tenders. The petitioner has also asserted that despite its pending representations, the respondent authorities proceeded with the financial bid evaluation and declared respondent No.6 as the successful bidder (L-1), thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity of consideration. On these premises, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the rejection of its technical bid, disclosure of the reasons and evaluation records, reconsideration of its bid in accordance with the tender conditions, and consequential setting aside of all subsequent actions taken pursuant thereto.
6
communication nor the e-procurement portal disclosed any deficiency, discrepancy or disqualification which formed the basis of such rejection. According to the petitioner, despite repeated representations dated 02.06.2026, 03.06.2026 and 04.06.2026 seeking disclosure of the reasons and evaluation records, the respondent authorities failed to furnish any explanation, speaking order or evaluation report, thereby depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to know and challenge the basis of its disqualification.
7
impugned rejection of the petitioner's technical bid and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto be quashed, and the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner's bid strictly in accordance with law and the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender.
8
rejected the petitioner's technical bid strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender and without any arbitrariness or mala fides. Learned counsel submits that Clause 15 of the NIT and Clause 29 of the Special Conditions specifically mandate that all certificates, annexures and other documents must be submitted in the prescribed format, failing which the bidder is liable to be disqualified and its financial bid cannot be opened. It is argued that the petitioner failed to comply with these mandatory conditions, inasmuch as Annexure-14 (Performance Certificate) was neither submitted in the prescribed format nor duly signed by the Engineer-in-Charge as required under the tender conditions. Further, Annexure-13 (Affidavit) submitted by the petitioner was also not in the prescribed format and contained material concealment regarding the petitioner's blacklisting by the Municipal Corporation, Durg. It is submitted that apart from the blacklisting order dated 30.01.2025 passed by Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited (HSCL), the petitioner had also been blacklisted by the Municipal Corporation, Durg on 29.04.2026, which fact was deliberately withheld in the affidavit accompanying the bid, thereby attracting the disqualification clause contained in the tender document. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner not only furnished documents contrary to the prescribed format but also failed to make a truthful disclosure as required under the bid conditions, rendering it ineligible for further participation. It is further submitted that the Tender Evaluation Committee, after considering the deficiencies in the documents and the petitioner's adverse record, declared the petitioner ineligible in strict conformity with the NIT conditions. It is argued that the
9
scope of judicial review in contractual matters is confined to examining the decision-making process and does not permit the Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the expert Tender Evaluation Committee. Since the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory eligibility requirements, the rejection of its technical bid cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of substance, deserves to be dismissed.
“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
10
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 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).
11
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 threeJudge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.
12
13
submission of Annexure-14 (Performance Certificate) not in the prescribed format and without the requisite certification by the Engineerin-Charge, submission of Annexure-13 (Affidavit) not in the prescribed format with concealment of the petitioner's blacklisting by the Municipal Corporation, Durg, and the petitioner's adverse record of blacklisting. The petitioner has failed to place any cogent material to demonstrate that these reasons are factually incorrect, that the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee was actuated by mala fides or intended to favour any particular bidder, or that the evaluation process was so arbitrary or irrational as to warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
ved
2 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of the petitioner's technical bid without contemporaneous reasons was arbitrary and amenable to judicial review under Article 226.
Whether non-compliance with prescribed formats and concealment of blacklisting justified disqualification under the tender conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best)Relied on¶9
Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Ashok Kumar Mittal Through Its Proprietor Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development
Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba
Assistant Engineer Municipal Corporation, Korba
Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation Korba
Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
