Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 05 November 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Niwas Roadlines Limited (public limited company, CIN U52290ct2026plc019672) represented by Director Ankit Bangur.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department; (2) Chhattisgarh State Co‑Operative Marketing Federation Ltd (Markfed); (3) Collector‑Cum‑Chairman District Level Committee (Paddy Transportation), Balodabazar‑Bhatapara; (4) District Marketing Officer, Markfed, Balodabazar‑Bhatapara; (5) Government e‑Marketplace (GeM) through its CEO.
  • Petition sought: (i) issuance of writ directing respondents to produce records of GeM Bid No. GEM/2026/B/8118258 and District Level Committee technical evaluation; (ii) setting aside technical disqualification dated 30‑Oct‑2026; (iii) declaration that petitioner, as a micro‑enterprise with a valid Udyam Registration Certificate, is exempt from Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) under Clause 6.19 of the Additional Terms and Conditions and the GeM bid document; (iv) direction to treat the technical bid as qualified and to open its financial bid; (v) alternatively, direction to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 30‑Oct‑2026 by a reasoned order after hearing; (vi) costs and any other relief.

Arguments Presented

  • Petitioners argued that the technical bid was rejected for non‑submission of EMD, but as a registered MSME (Udyam Registration Certificate attached as Annexure P‑5) no EMD should be required.
  • Respondents (Markfed and DMO) contended that the Udyam Registration Certificate is a self‑declaration and cannot be equated with an MSME certificate. They cited Annexure P‑6 showing the petitioner’s annual turnover for FY 2024‑25 as ₹3,31,78,41,191.73, which exceeds the MSME threshold, thus the petitioner is not eligible for EMD exemption.
  • Petitioners later submitted that the price bid had already been opened and the petitioner could not be the lowest bidder (L‑1), rendering the writ academic.

Court’s Reasoning and Order

  • The Court observed that the petition had become academic because the price bid was already opened and the petitioner was not the L‑1 bidder.
  • Consequently, the Court held that no further consideration of the writ petition was necessary and disposed of the petition.
  • The Court expressly stated that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition filed by Niwas Roadlines Ltd is dismissed; no further proceedings will be taken, and the Court makes no determination on the substantive issues of MSME status or EMD exemption.

Topics: Procurement, MSME Exemption