Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 03.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s Current Crafts, proprietorship of Smt. Payal Patel, residing Village Tendua, Post Deorbija, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents: 1) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) – Managing Director, 2) Superintending Engineer, CSPDCL – Circle Durg, 3) Executive Engineer (O & M) Division Saja, CSPDCL.
  • Counsel: For petitioner – Mr. Ankush Borkar; for respondents – Mr. Shashwat Rai.
  • Petition No.: WPC No. 3411 of 2026, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • Reliefs Sought: (i) Quash the impugned letter dated 11.06.2026 issued by Respondent No.3; (ii) Direct respondents to allow petitioner to participate in Tender Nos. 423, 424 and 425 and evaluate bids without prejudice; (iii) Ensure transparency and fairness in the tender process; (iv) Any other appropriate relief.
  • Tender Details: CSPDCL invited bids for Tender Nos. 423, 424 and 425; last date for submission was 08.06.2026. Petitioner submitted bids, claiming eligibility.
  • Alleged Irregularities: Petitioner raised oral objections on the last date, alleging lack of transparency. Respondent No.3 subsequently issued a disqualification letter dated 11.06.2026, alleging petitioner misbehaved on 25.05.2026 at the Divisional Office, Saja.
  • FIR Details: FIR No. 162/2026 registered on 09.06.2026 at Saja Police Station, District Bemetara, against Shri Nilesh Patel (husband of petitioner) and Vicky Patel for alleged abusive language, shouting, and threats to kill officials on 25.05.2026.
  • Respondents' Position: Disqualification was based on the seriousness of the incident, as recorded in the FIR and an office note, to maintain discipline and fairness in the tender process.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: No show‑cause notice or hearing was given; the disqualification was arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21, and retaliatory for raising objections.
  • Additional Context: Petitioner’s husband had earlier challenged another tender (WPC No. 1749 of 2026) which was dismissed by this Court on 16.04.2026.

Final Outcome

  • The Court examined the legality of the decision‑making process, not the merits of the FIR investigation.
  • It held that participation in a government tender is not a fundamental right and that the respondents provided sufficient reasons linked to the FIR incident.
  • No material was produced to demonstrate that the disqualification was malafide or solely in retaliation for the petitioner’s objections.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Topics: Public Procurement, Judicial Review