Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 06/07/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s Ashok Kumar Mittal (proprietor Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal), an A‑Class contractor, challenged the rejection of its technical bid for Notice Inviting Tender No. 332/2026, System Tender No. 188571 (2nd Call) concerning the construction of the "Gaurav Path Four‑Lane B.T. Road from CSEB Chowk to Jain Chowk to ITI Chowk to Kosabadi Chowk, Korba". The estimated contract value was ₹3,356.30 lakhs.
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (Secretary, Dept. of Urban Administration & Development), Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba, Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer of Municipal Corporation Korba, and Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. (declared successful L‑1 bidder).
  • The petitioner alleged that its technical bid was rejected on 02‑06‑2026 via SMS without any stated reason, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice.
  • Reliefs sought included quashing the rejection, disclosure of evaluation records, reconsideration of the bid, setting aside the award to Raipur Construction, ordering a fresh tender, and costs.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The tender stipulated mandatory submission of Annexure‑13 (Affidavit) and Annexure‑14 (Performance Certificate) in prescribed formats; non‑compliance is a ground for disqualification.
  • Respondents explained that the petitioner’s Annexure‑14 was not in the required format and lacked the Engineer‑in‑Charge’s signature, and Annexure‑13 was also non‑compliant and concealed a blacklisting order dated 30‑01‑2025 issued by Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited and a separate blacklisting by Municipal Corporation Durg dated 29‑04‑2026.
  • The Court held that the absence of a speaking order in the SMS communication does not, by itself, render the decision arbitrary or illegal.
  • Citing Supreme Court judgments (Tata Motors Ltd. v. BMETU, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., etc.), the Court emphasized judicial restraint in tender matters and noted that interference is warranted only on clear evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality.
  • No material was found to demonstrate bias, mala fides, or procedural illegality on the part of the Tender Evaluation Committee.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order for disclosure, reconsideration, fresh tender, or costs is granted.

Topics: Tender Evaluation, Public Procurement