Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Ramsaran Singh Projects Llp vs Wapcos Limited on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5474 of 2025
1 - M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects Llp ('a' Class Civil Contractor), A Limited
Liability Partnership Firm, Shanti Nagar Sukma Through Its Partner Shri
Ramsharan Singh Bhadoriya, S/o Shri Rajbahadur Singh Bhadoriya, Aged
About 69 Years, R/o Ward No. 10 House No. 56, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, District
Sukma (C.G.)
2 - Ramsharan Singh Bhadoriya S/o Shri Rajbahadur Singh Bhadoriya Aged
About 69 Years R/o Ward No. 10 House No. 56, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, District
Sukma (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Wapcos Limited A Government Of India Undertaking, Through Its Chief
Engineer, Construction Management Unit-Iii, 1st Floor, Plot No. 148, Sector-44,
Gurugram Haryana - 122003
2 - The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Wapcos Limited, 76-C, Institutional
Area, Sector-18, Gurugram Haryana - 122015
3 - National Education Society For Tribal Students (Nests) Through Its Director,
Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi
4 - Shri Balaji Constructions (Engineers And Contractors), C/o Hariom Medical
Agency, Medical Complex, Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
5 - Shreeji Krupa Project Ltd., 303 Iscon Mall, Near Big Bazar, 150ft. Ring
VED PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.03.19
11:05:27 +0530
2
Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360 001
6 - The Chief Engineer (Cmu-Iii) Wapcos Limited (Psu Under Ministry Of Jal
Shakti) Npcc Building, 1st Floor, Plot No. 148, Sec. - 44, Gurugram, Haryana
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Vivek
Shrivastava, Advocates
For Respondents No. 1, 2 : Mr. Santosh Tripathi, Senior Advocate
and 6 (through virtual mode) along with Mr.
Shivank Mishra and Mr. Tushar Sannu,
Advocates
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central
Government Counsel
For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
12/03/2026
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioners calling in question the legality,
validity and propriety of the e-mail communication dated 10.10.2025
issued by respondent No.1 through respondent No.6, whereby the bid
submitted by petitioner No.1 in response to the Notice Inviting Tender
(NIT) for the work of “Construction of Eklavya Model Residential School
(EMRS) at Tokapal, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh)” has been declared
3
technically disqualified. As per the impugned communication, the bid of
the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the bank guarantee
furnished by the petitioners towards bid security was valid only upto
18.10.2025, whereas in terms of the NIT the bid security was required to
remain valid for a period of 45 days beyond the final bid validity period
i.e. upto 04.01.2026. The petitioners contend that the action of the
respondent authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as the
bid submitted by respondent No.4 has been declared technically
qualified even though the bank guarantee furnished by respondent No.4
was also not valid upto the required date and was valid only upto
02.01.2026. It is the case of the petitioners that both the petitioners and
respondent No.4 were placed on the same footing with regard to
compliance of the tender condition relating to validity of the bank
guarantee, yet the respondent authorities have adopted a differential
treatment by disqualifying the petitioners while permitting respondent
No.4 to proceed further in the tender process, which according to the
petitioners amounts to violation of the principles of equality and fairness
embodied under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the
following reliefs:-
“A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
mandamus do issue calling for the records of
case pertaining petitioners’ case from authorities
below concerned if this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit in facts and circumstances of the case.
4B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
certiorari do issue quashing e-mail/letter dated
10.10.2025 by which reasons has been assigned
for declaring the petitioners disqualified be
quashed be arbitrary, illegal and comes within the
purview of malice in fact and malice in law and in
violation of petitioners’ fundamental and
constitutional rights and in effect, declare the
petitioners qualified and further order be passed
of consideration of bid submitted by petitioners
along with other tenderers in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
mandamus do issue restraining the respondent
authorities from awarding the tender and entering
into contract with respondent No. 4 as such award
will come in purview of malice in law and malice in
fact, contrary to law settled in this regard and in
the facts and circumstances of case.
D. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”
3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are
that, the petitioner No.1 is a Limited Liability Partnership firm registered
5
under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and is
an experienced ‘A’ Class civil contractor undertaking construction works.
Petitioner No.2 is one of the partners of petitioner No.1 and is authorized
to represent the firm in all contractual and legal matters.
******* The respondent No.1 i.e. WAPCOS Limited, a Government of
India undertaking under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, acting as Project
Management Consultant on behalf of the National Education Society for
Tribal Students (NESTS), issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing
No. WAP/CMU-III/2025-26/NESTS/CHTGH/TOKAPAL/08 dated
04.08.2025 for the work of Construction of Eklavya Model Residential
School (EMRS) at Tokapal, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh having an
estimated cost of Rs.30,42,77,137/- excluding GST. The tender was
invited through an open online percentage rate system in two envelopes
i.e. technical bid and financial bid from experienced and eligible
contractors.
******* As per the terms and conditions of the NIT, the last date for
submission of technical and financial bids was 20.08.2025 and the
technical bids were to be opened thereafter. The NIT also stipulated that
the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)/Bid Security shall remain valid for a
period of 45 days beyond the final bid validity period, and the bid validity
period was fixed as 90 days from the date of opening of the technical
bid.
******* In response to the aforesaid NIT, petitioner No.1 submitted its bid
within the stipulated time along with all requisite documents including the
6
required Earnest Money Deposit partly in the form of Fixed Deposit
Receipt and partly in the form of Bank Guarantee as permitted under the
tender conditions. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 also submitted their bids for
the said work.
******* After submission of bids, the technical bids were opened on
22.08.2025. Subsequently, the respondent authorities examined the
documents submitted by the bidders. During the course of scrutiny,
respondent No.1 issued a communication dated 03.09.2025 to petitioner
No.1 informing that its bid for EMRS Tokapal had been received and
examined and calling upon the petitioner to submit certain documents
relating to similar works executed by the petitioner, including work orders
and agreements with BOQ in respect of construction works carried out
at Sukma and Kondagaon districts.
******* In compliance with the aforesaid communication dated
03.09.2025, the petitioner promptly submitted the required documents
through e-mail within the stipulated period along with copies of
agreements, work orders and BOQs relating to the similar works
executed by the petitioner firm. Thus, the petitioner fulfilled all the
requisitions made by the respondent authorities during the process of
evaluation of the technical bid.
******* Thereafter, to the utter surprise of the petitioners, it came to their
notice that petitioner No.1 had been declared technically disqualified in
the bid evaluation process. Being aggrieved by the said action and not
being aware of the reasons for disqualification, the petitioners addressed
7
an e-mail dated 09.10.2025 at about 10:50 a.m. to the respondent
authorities requesting them to provide specific reasons for declaring the
petitioner disqualified. The petitioners also objected to the opening of the
financial bids of other bidders without providing a clear and valid
explanation for such disqualification.
******* However, despite the aforesaid objection raised by the
petitioners, the respondent authorities proceeded to open the financial
bids of other bidders without responding to the petitioners’ request for
clarification. Thereafter, the petitioners received an e-mail dated
10.10.2025 from the Chief Engineer (CMU-III), WAPCOS Limited,
informing that the bid submitted by the petitioner had been disqualified
on the ground that the Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner
towards bid security was valid only up to 18.10.2025, whereas as per
the tender conditions the bid security was required to remain valid up to
04.01.2026, which was calculated as 45 days beyond the bid validity
period.
******* According to the petitioners, the reason assigned by the
respondent authorities for disqualifying their bid is wholly arbitrary and
discriminatory. Upon verification of the documents submitted by
respondent No.4, the petitioners found that the bank guarantee
furnished by respondent No.4 in support of its bid security was also not
valid up to the required date of 04.01.2026. As per the bank guarantee
issued in favour of respondent No.4, the validity of the said bank
guarantee extended only up to 02.01.2026.
8
******* Thus, both the petitioner and respondent No.4 had submitted
bank guarantees which were not strictly valid up to 04.01.2026 as
required under the NIT. However, while the petitioner’s bid was rejected
on the said ground, respondent No.4 was declared technically qualified
and allowed to participate further in the tender process.
******* The petitioners submit that both the petitioner and respondent
No.4 stood on the same footing with respect to compliance of the
condition relating to validity of the bank guarantee, yet the respondent
authorities adopted a discriminatory approach by disqualifying the
petitioner while treating respondent No.4 as eligible. Such differential
treatment, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary, unfair and violative of
the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
******* Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent
authorities in declaring the petitioner disqualified and allowing similarly
placed bidders to participate in the tender process, the petitioners have
approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition seeking
appropriate reliefs.
4. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that, the action of the respondent authorities in declaring the
petitioner No.1 technically disqualified is arbitrary, unreasonable and
violative of the constitutional mandate of fairness and equality embodied
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the
impugned communication dated 10.10.2025 issued by respondent No.1
9
assigning reasons for disqualification of the petitioner is illegal and liable
to be set aside.
******* Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.1, WAPCOS
Limited, a Government of India undertaking acting as Project
Management Consultant on behalf of National Education Society for
Tribal Students (NESTS), issued a Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.
WAP/CMU-III/2025-26/NESTS/CHTGH/TOKAPAL/08 dated 04.08.2025
inviting bids for construction of Eklavya Model Residential School
(EMRS) at Tokapal, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh having an estimated
cost of Rs.30,42,77,137/-. The tender was invited through an open
online system from experienced and eligible contractors in a two-
envelope system comprising technical and financial bids.
******* It is submitted that petitioner No.1, being an experienced ‘A’ Class
civil contractor, submitted its bid within the stipulated time along with all
requisite documents including the Earnest Money Deposit partly in the
form of Fixed Deposit Receipt and partly in the form of Bank Guarantee
as permitted under the tender conditions. The technical bids were
opened on 22.08.2025 and thereafter the respondent authorities
scrutinized the documents submitted by the bidders.
******* Learned counsel would submit that during the course of scrutiny,
respondent No.1 issued a communication dated 03.09.2025 calling upon
the petitioner to submit certain documents relating to similar works
executed by it. The petitioners duly complied with the said requisition
and submitted all required documents within the stipulated time. This
10
itself clearly indicates that the petitioners were treated as eligible bidders
and their bid was under active consideration by the respondent
authorities.
******* It is further submitted that despite the petitioners having complied
with all requirements, the respondent authorities declared the petitioner
technically disqualified. Being aggrieved, the petitioners addressed an e-
mail dated 09.10.2025 requesting the respondent authorities to provide
the reasons for such disqualification. However, without responding to the
said request, the respondent authorities proceeded to open the financial
bids of other bidders.
******* Learned counsel would submit that subsequently, by e-mail dated
10.10.2025, the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that its
bid had been disqualified on the ground that the bank guarantee
furnished towards bid security was valid only up to 18.10.2025, whereas
as per the terms of the NIT the bid security was required to remain valid
for a period of 45 days beyond the bid validity period i.e. up to
04.01.2026.
******* Learned counsel would submit that the aforesaid ground for
disqualification is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that
the bank guarantee furnished by respondent No.4 was also not valid up
to the required date of 04.01.2026. As per the bank guarantee submitted
by respondent No.4, the validity of the said guarantee extended only up
to 02.01.2026. Thus, both the petitioner and respondent No.4 had
11
submitted bank guarantees which did not strictly comply with the
requirement of validity up to 04.01.2026.
******* Learned counsel would submit that despite the fact that both the
bidders stood on the same footing, the respondent authorities adopted a
discriminatory approach by disqualifying the petitioner while declaring
respondent No.4 technically qualified and permitting it to participate
further in the tender process. Such differential treatment between
similarly situated bidders is arbitrary and violates the doctrine of level
playing field which forms part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
******* Learned counsel would further submit that the State and its
instrumentalities are bound to act strictly in accordance with law and
cannot exercise powers in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In support
of the said submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipak Babaria and another v. State of
Gujarat and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 502, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that when a statute or rule prescribes a
particular manner in which a power is to be exercised, the authority must
act strictly in accordance with the procedure so prescribed and any
action taken contrary thereto would be invalid.
******* Learned counsel would submit that in the aforesaid judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that where a thing
is required to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that
manner alone and in no other manner. The Court further held that any
12
deviation from the prescribed procedure would render the action
arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
******* Relying upon the aforesaid principle, learned counsel would
submit that the respondent authorities, while evaluating the bids, were
required to uniformly apply the conditions of the tender to all bidders.
However, in the present case, the respondent authorities have applied
the condition relating to validity of the bank guarantee selectively only
against the petitioners while ignoring the same deficiency in the case of
respondent No.4. Such selective application of tender conditions is
clearly arbitrary and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
******* Learned counsel would further submit that the purpose of a
transparent tender process is to ensure fair competition and to secure
the best value for public money. By arbitrarily excluding the petitioners
from the tender process while permitting similarly placed bidders to
participate, the respondent authorities have not only violated the rights
of the petitioners but have also caused serious prejudice to the public
exchequer.
******* It is therefore submitted that the impugned action of the
respondent authorities in declaring the petitioner technically disqualified
is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India and is liable to be interfered with by this Hon’ble
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
13
******* On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners
prays that the impugned communication dated 10.10.2025 be quashed
and the respondent authorities be directed to treat the petitioners as
technically qualified and to consider their bid in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, Mr. Santosh Tripathi, Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondents No. 1, 2 and 6 would submit that, the present writ petition
filed by the petitioners is wholly misconceived, devoid of merits and not
maintainable in law as well as on facts. The petitioners have challenged
the e-mail/letter dated 10.10.2025 whereby the petitioners were declared
disqualified in the tender process. It is submitted that the said action of
the answering respondents is strictly in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and does not suffer from
any arbitrariness, illegality or malafide as alleged by the petitioners.
******* Learned counsel would further submit that the answering
Respondent No.1/WAPCOS Ltd. had invited Open Online Percentage
Rate Tenders from experienced and competent contractors for the
project namely “Construction of Eklavya Model Residential School
(EMRS) at Tokapal, District Bastar (C.G.)” on 04.08.2025. The estimated
cost of the said project was Rs. 30,42,77,137/-. The last date of
submission of bids was 20.08.2025 and the technical bids were opened
on 21.08.2025. The petitioners, along with Respondents No.4 and 5,
submitted their bids in accordance with the NIT through the online mode.
******* It is submitted that the conditions of the NIT clearly stipulated that
the Employer, i.e., WAPCOS Ltd., reserves the absolute right to accept
14
or reject any bid without assigning any reason whatsoever. It was also
categorically provided that no bidder shall have any cause of action or
claim against the employer in respect of rejection of his bid. Thus, the
petitioners were fully aware of the tender conditions and had participated
in the tender process with full knowledge of such terms.
******* Learned counsel would further submit that merely because the
petitioners were initially treated as admitted tenderers does not confer
any vested or indefeasible right upon them to be declared technically
qualified. Admission of a bid for scrutiny does not amount to acceptance
of the bid. The tendering authority retains the right to examine the
documents and verify whether the bidder fulfills the mandatory eligibility
criteria as stipulated under the NIT.
******* It is respectfully submitted that after scrutiny of the documents
submitted by the petitioners, it was found that the petitioners had
submitted the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) partly in the form of Bank
Guarantee which did not comply with the validity requirements
prescribed under the NIT. As per the tender conditions, the Bid Validity
Period was required to be 90 days from the date of opening of the
technical bid, i.e., from 21.08.2025, which would expire on 18.11.2025.
Further, the NIT specifically provided that the Bid Security must remain
valid for an additional period of 45 days beyond the Bid Validity Period,
which would extend the required validity of the Bank Guarantee up to
02.01.2026.
15
******* However, in the present case, the Bank Guarantee submitted by
the petitioners, issued by the State Bank of India, clearly mentions that
the guarantee was valid only up to 18.10.2025, and the claim expiry date
was also 18.10.2025. Thus, the Bank Guarantee submitted by the
petitioners fell far short of the mandatory requirement of validity up to
02.01.2026 as required under the NIT conditions.
******* Learned counsel would further submit that since the Bank
Guarantee submitted by the petitioners did not satisfy the essential
condition regarding validity of the Bid Security, the petitioners failed to
fulfill the mandatory eligibility criteria of the tender. Consequently, the
technical bid submitted by the petitioners was rightly declared
disqualified by the answering respondents vide e-mail/letter dated
10.10.2025.
******* It is further submitted that in contrast, Respondent No.4 had
submitted the EMD in the form of TDR along with a Bank Guarantee
issued by YES Bank which clearly fulfilled all the requirements of the
NIT. The Bank Guarantee submitted by Respondent No.4 was valid up
to 02.01.2026 with stated claim expiry date of 13.08.2026, which fully
complied with the tender conditions. Therefore, the technical bid of
Respondent No.4 was rightly declared qualified by the tendering
authority.
******* Learned counsel for the answering respondents submits that the
petitioners are attempting to create an impression that they were
arbitrarily disqualified and that the tendering authority has favored
16
Respondent No.4. Such allegations are completely baseless and without
any supporting material. The disqualification of the petitioners was solely
on account of their failure to comply with the mandatory conditions of the
NIT relating to the validity of the Bank Guarantee.
******* It is a settled principle of law that in matters relating to award of
contracts and tender processes, the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution is extremely limited. The courts do not sit
as an appellate authority over the decisions of the tendering authority.
Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or in
violation of statutory provisions, the Court ordinarily does not interfere
with administrative decisions in contractual matters.
******* In this regard, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Babaria (supra),
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the scope of judicial
review in contractual matters is limited and the courts should not
interfere with administrative decisions relating to contracts unless the
decision is patently arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to law.
******* It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgment has categorically observed that the courts should exercise
great restraint in interfering with decisions taken by competent
authorities in contractual and commercial matters, particularly when
such decisions are taken in accordance with the terms of the contract or
tender conditions.
17
******* In the present case, the action of the answering respondents is
strictly in accordance with the conditions of the NIT. The petitioners have
admittedly submitted a Bank Guarantee which did not meet the
mandatory validity requirement. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim
any right to be declared qualified in the tender process.
******* Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners, having
participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the conditions
stipulated in the NIT, cannot now be permitted to challenge the very
same conditions after being found non-compliant. It is a settled principle
that a bidder who participates in a tender process cannot subsequently
question the terms of the tender after failing to meet the eligibility
criteria.
******* It is therefore submitted that the decision taken by Respondent
No.1/WAPCOS Ltd. declaring the petitioners disqualified is a lawful and
reasoned decision based on objective criteria prescribed under the NIT.
The same does not suffer from any arbitrariness, malice in fact or malice
in law as alleged in the writ petition.
******* In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel
for Respondents No.1, 2 and 6 most respectfully submits that the
present writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant any
interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the present writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
18
6. Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3 would submit that, the present writ petition, insofar as it concerns
Respondent No.3, is wholly misconceived and not maintainable.
Respondent No.3 – National Education Society for Tribal Students
(NESTS) has no role whatsoever in the tendering process, evaluation of
bids or issuance of the impugned communication dated 10.10.2025
declaring the petitioners disqualified. Hence, Respondent No.3 has been
unnecessarily and improperly impleaded in the present proceedings.
******* Learned counsel would submit that Respondent No.3 is an
autonomous organization under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
Government of India, entrusted with the implementation and
administration of Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS) across the
country. In order to execute the construction works of EMRS projects,
Respondent No.3 entered into an Agreement dated 14.12.2022 with
Respondent No.1 – WAPCOS Ltd., whereby WAPCOS Ltd. was
appointed as the Construction Agency (CA) for execution of the EMRS
projects.
******* It is submitted that under the said Agreement, Respondent No.3
acts merely as the Owner/Client, whereas Respondent No.1 – WAPCOS
Ltd. functions as the Construction Agency, entrusted with the complete
responsibility of carrying out the tendering process, evaluation of bids
and award of contracts.
******* Learned counsel would further draw the attention of this Hon’ble
Court to Clause 3.1 of the Agreement dated 14.12.2022, which clearly
19
stipulates the responsibilities of the Construction Agency towards the
Owner/Client. As per the said clause:
(i) The Construction Agency shall execute the works through
contracts by calling tenders in accordance with the
applicable CPWD guidelines.
(ii) No approval is required from NESTS for processing of
tenders.
(iii) Assessment of the reasonability of the tender is the sole
responsibility of the Construction Agency.
(iv) Calling of tenders, their publicity, scrutiny of bid
documents, evaluation of bids, determination of the L-1
bidder and award of the work are matters exclusively within
the domain of the competent authority of the Construction
Agency.
******* In light of the aforesaid contractual arrangement, it is evident that
Respondent No.3 – NESTS has neither participated in nor exercised any
control over the tender process in question. The entire process relating
to issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), scrutiny of bid
documents, evaluation of the technical bids, verification of bank
guarantees and declaration of qualified bidders has been undertaken
solely by Respondent No.1 – WAPCOS Ltd.
20
******* Learned counsel submits that the grievance raised by the
petitioners pertains to their alleged disqualification from the tender
process on the basis of the impugned communication dated 10.10.2025
issued by Respondent No.1. The said decision relates purely to the
evaluation of tender documents and compliance with the tender
conditions, which is an administrative and contractual function
exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of the Construction Agency,
namely Respondent No.1.
******* It is respectfully submitted that Respondent No.3 had no
involvement whatsoever in the scrutiny or evaluation of the bid
submitted by the petitioners. Respondent No.3 did not examine the
documents submitted by the petitioners, nor did it evaluate the validity of
the bank guarantee furnished by them. Consequently, Respondent No.3
had no role in the decision declaring the petitioners disqualified.
******* Learned counsel would therefore submit that the petitioners have
erroneously and unnecessarily impleaded Respondent No.3 in the
present writ petition despite the fact that no relief has been specifically
claimed against Respondent No.3 and no cause of action has arisen
against it.
*******Without prejudice to the above submissions, Respondent No.3
specifically denies all allegations made in the writ petition which are
contrary to the record and the contractual arrangement between
Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1.
21
*******Hence, the present writ petition, insofar as Respondent No.3 is
concerned, deserves to be dismissed and the name of Respondent No.3
be deleted from the array of parties.
7. Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.4 would submit that, the present writ petition is wholly misconceived
and not maintainable either on facts or in law. It is submitted that the
entire challenge raised by the petitioners is premised on an incorrect
interpretation of the tender conditions as well as a misreading of the
documents placed on record. The petitioners have attempted to create a
false parity between themselves and respondent No.4 in order to
contend that both stood on the same footing with regard to compliance
of the condition relating to validity of the bank guarantee. However, on a
proper reading of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and the documents
submitted by the respective bidders, it becomes clear that the petitioners
had failed to comply with a mandatory condition of the NIT, whereas
respondent No.4 had fully satisfied the said requirement.
******* Learned counsel would submit that Clause 7 of the NIT
specifically stipulates that the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)/Bid
Security shall remain valid for a period of 45 days beyond the final bid
validity period. Clause 10 of the NIT further provides that the bid validity
period shall be 90 days from the date of opening of the technical bid. As
per Clause 15 of the NIT, the technical bids were opened on 21.08.2025.
Thus, the total validity period required for the bid security would be 90
days plus an additional 45 days, i.e., a total of 135 days from the date of
opening of the technical bid. On calculation, the period of 135 days
22
commencing from 21.08.2025 expires on 02.01.2026. Therefore, the
bank guarantee furnished by respondent No.4, which is valid up to
02.01.2026 with claim expiry date up to 13.08.2026, fully satisfies the
requirement stipulated under the NIT.
******* It is further submitted that the petitioners have attempted to rely
upon the impugned e-mail communication dated 10.10.2025 to contend
that the bid security was required to remain valid up to 04.01.2026.
However, the said date mentioned in the communication is clearly a
clerical or calculation error and cannot override the explicit terms of the
NIT. The tender conditions form the governing framework for evaluation
of bids and any clerical mistake in an e-mail communication cannot alter
or modify the tender conditions. When the NIT is read in its entirety, it
clearly demonstrates that the required validity period of the bid security
was up to 02.01.2026 and the bank guarantee submitted by respondent
No.4 is fully compliant with the said requirement.
******* Learned counsel would further submit that the bank guarantee
furnished by the petitioners was valid only up to 18.10.2025, which falls
substantially short of the mandatory requirement under the NIT. Since
the petitioners had failed to comply with an essential condition relating to
the validity of the bid security, their bid was rightly declared technically
disqualified by the tendering authority. The action of the respondent
authorities is therefore strictly in accordance with the tender conditions
and does not suffer from any arbitrariness or discrimination as alleged
by the petitioners.
23
******In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in WPC No. 482 of 2025 (M/s Shraddha
Construction Company v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), wherein it
has been held that in tender matters involving technical evaluation and
compliance with eligibility criteria, the writ court should exercise great
restraint and should not substitute its own decision for that of the
tendering authority. The Court observed that judicial review is confined
to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the
decision itself.
******* Learned counsel further places reliance on the decision of this
Court in WPC No. 4843 of 2025 (Surface Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India & Ors.), wherein it has been reiterated that the
interpretation of tender conditions lies primarily within the domain of the
tendering authority which has authored the tender documents. The
Court held that unless the interpretation adopted by the authority is
shown to be patently arbitrary or perverse, the writ court should refrain
from interfering with the decision taken in the course of the tender
process.
******* Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in WPC No.
5508 of 2024 (M/s Mokshit Corporation v. State of Chhattisgarh &
Ors.), wherein it has been held that a bidder who fails to comply with the
mandatory conditions of the NIT cannot claim any vested right to be
declared technically qualified. The Court further observed that in
commercial and contractual matters involving public tenders, the
employer is the best judge of its requirements and the courts should not
24
interfere unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or manifest
arbitrariness.
******* It is also pointed out that respondent No.5 has ultimately been
declared the successful bidder and the validity of the bank guarantee
furnished by respondent No.5 is not under challenge. Therefore, the
grievance raised by the petitioners against respondent No.4 is wholly
misplaced and has no bearing on the final outcome of the tender
process. The writ petition is thus devoid of merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.5 would submit that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived,
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. At the outset,
it is contended that the principal grievance raised by the petitioners is
against the alleged qualification of Respondent No.4 in the tender
process, whereas no allegation whatsoever has been raised against the
answering Respondent No.5. The petitioners have neither questioned
the eligibility of Respondent No.5 nor pointed out any irregularity or
deficiency in the bid submitted by Respondent No.5. In absence of any
challenge against the answering respondent, the present writ petition,
insofar as it concerns Respondent No.5, deserves to be dismissed
outright.
******* Learned counsel would further submit that the Respondent No.1,
which is a Government of India undertaking, had invited an Open Online
Percentage Rate Tender for the project of construction of Eklavya Model
25
Residential School (EMRS) at Tokapal, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh)
with an estimated cost of Rs.30,42,77,137/-. The tender process was
conducted through a two-envelope system consisting of technical and
financial bids. In response to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated
04.08.2025, the petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.4 and 5
submitted their bids through the online mode within the prescribed time.
******* It is submitted that as per the conditions stipulated in the NIT,
particularly Clause 7 and other relevant provisions relating to bid
security, the bidders were required to submit an Earnest Money Deposit
(EMD)/Bid Security which was to remain valid for a period of 45 days
beyond the final bid validity period. The NIT further provided that the bid
validity period would be 90 days from the date of opening of the
technical bid. As per the schedule mentioned in the NIT, the technical
bids were opened on 21.08.2025. Consequently, the bid validity period
of 90 days expired on 18.11.2025 and the bid security was required to
remain valid for an additional period of 45 days thereafter, i.e., up to
02.01.2026.
******* Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have been
declared technically disqualified solely on account of their failure to
comply with the mandatory requirement relating to the validity of the
bank guarantee furnished towards the bid security. The bank guarantee
submitted by the petitioners was valid only up to 18.10.2025 and the
claim expiry date was also the same. Since the said bank guarantee did
not remain valid up to 02.01.2026 as required under the NIT, the
26
tendering authority was fully justified in declaring the technical bid of the
petitioners as disqualified.
******* It is further submitted that the petitioners have attempted to
contend that Respondent No.4 was also similarly placed and yet was
declared qualified. However, the said contention is factually incorrect.
The bank guarantee submitted by Respondent No.4 was valid up to
02.01.2026 with the claim expiry date extending up to 13.08.2026. Thus,
the bid security furnished by Respondent No.4 strictly complied with the
terms and conditions of the NIT. Therefore, the allegation of
discrimination or arbitrariness raised by the petitioners is wholly
baseless.
******* Learned counsel would submit that the tender conditions clearly
provided that the employer, namely Respondent No.1/WAPCOS Ltd.,
reserved the right to accept or reject any bid without assigning any
reason and that no bidder would have any cause of action against such
decision. The petitioners, having participated in the tender process with
full knowledge of the terms and conditions contained in the NIT, cannot
now be permitted to challenge the same after having failed to comply
with the essential requirement relating to bid security validity.
******* In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is respectfully
prayed that the present writ petition being devoid of merit and substance
deserves to be dismissed.
9. In response to the return/reply filed by learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, a rejoinder has also been filed in the petition, in which
27
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, the
action of the respondent authorities in declaring the petitioners
technically disqualified is wholly arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and violative of the settled principles
governing public tender processes. It is submitted that the controversy in
the present writ petition revolves around the interpretation of Clause 7 of
the NIT dated 04.08.2025, particularly the note appended thereto which
specifically stipulates that the Bid Security shall remain valid for a period
of 45 days beyond the final bid validity period.
******* Learned counsel would submit that Clause 10 of the NIT clearly
provides that the bid validity period shall be 90 days from the date of
opening of the technical bid. Thus, in order to determine the validity of
the bid security, it is necessary to first ascertain the correct date of
opening of the technical bid and thereafter calculate the bid validity
period of 90 days in accordance with the terms of the NIT.
******* It is submitted that as per the Technical Bid Summary prepared by
the respondent authorities themselves, the technical bids were actually
opened on 22.08.2025, which is evident from the bid opening summary
report placed on record by the petitioners. Therefore, the period of 90
days stipulated under Clause 10 of the NIT must necessarily be
computed from 22.08.2025.
******* Learned counsel would submit that the respondents, in their
return, have attempted to justify their action by calculating the validity
period by counting both the starting and ending dates and thereby
28
introducing the expression “both days inclusive”, which does not form
part of the original tender conditions. It is contended that the tender
document nowhere states that the period of 90 days is to be counted by
including both the first and the last day. The respondents, by inserting
such words in their return, have effectively altered the tender conditions
which is impermissible in law.
******* It is further submitted that the settled principle governing
computation of time, particularly when the expression “from” is used, is
that the first day is to be excluded. Therefore, when Clause 10 of the NIT
provides that the bid validity period shall be 90 days from the date of
opening of technical bid, the correct interpretation would require
exclusion of the first day in the series. Applying this well-established
principle, the period of 90 days would have to be calculated by excluding
the date of opening of the technical bid and counting the days thereafter.
******* Learned counsel would submit that the respondents themselves
have admitted in their e-mail communication dated 10.10.2025
addressed to the petitioners that the technical bid was opened on
22.08.2025 and that the bid security was required to remain valid up to
04.01.2026. The said e-mail communication clearly records that the
bank guarantee submitted by the petitioners was valid up to 18.10.2025
against the required validity up to 04.01.2026, and on that basis the
petitioners were declared disqualified.
******* However, in the return filed before this Hon’ble Court, the
respondents have taken a completely different stand by stating that the
29
bid security was required to remain valid only up to 02.01.2026. Thus,
the respondent authorities have taken two mutually contradictory
positions with regard to the validity period of the bid security.
******* Learned counsel would submit that such contradictory stands
taken by the respondents demonstrate arbitrariness and lack of
transparency in the decision-making process. The respondents cannot
be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time by stating one thing
in their official communication dated 10.10.2025 and an entirely different
position in their counter affidavit filed before this Court.
******* It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the
validity of an administrative order must be judged on the basis of the
reasons stated in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by fresh
reasons subsequently introduced in the form of an affidavit. In support of
this proposition, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 wherein it has been categorically
held that when a statutory authority makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by additional reasons in the shape of an
affidavit.
******* Learned counsel would submit that the said principle has been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JVPD Scheme Welfare
Trust v. MHADA, (2019) 11 SCC 361 wherein it has been held that an
order must stand or fall on the reasons contained in the order itself and
30
the authorities cannot improve their case by introducing new
explanations during the course of litigation.
******* Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it
is submitted that the impugned communication dated 10.10.2025
specifically mentions that the bid security was required to remain valid
up to 04.01.2026. Therefore, the respondent authorities cannot now
attempt to alter the said position by stating in their return that the validity
period was only up to 02.01.2026. Such an attempt clearly amounts to
introducing new reasons in order to justify an action which was
otherwise unsustainable at the time it was taken.
******* Learned counsel therefore prays that the impugned
communication dated 10.10.2025 declaring the petitioners disqualified
deserves to be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to
treat the petitioners as technically qualified and to consider their bid in
accordance with law. In the alternative, it is submitted that the tender
process deserves to be reconsidered in order to ensure fairness,
transparency and adherence to the conditions of the NIT.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions made herein above and also gone through the entire
records of the case with utmost circumspection.
11. The principal controversy involved in the present writ petition pertains to
the interpretation of the tender conditions contained in the Notice Inviting
Tender (NIT) dated 04.08.2025, particularly Clause 7 relating to validity
of Bid Security and Clause 10 which provides that the bid validity period
31
shall be 90 days from the date of opening of the technical bid. The
petitioners contend that the respondents have wrongly computed the
period of bid validity and consequently the period for which the bid
security was required to remain valid. According to the petitioners, the
respondents have adopted an erroneous interpretation of the tender
conditions in order to justify the disqualification of the petitioners and to
extend an undue benefit to respondent No.4.
12. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the tender conditions clearly
stipulated that the Bid Security was required to remain valid for a period
of 45 days beyond the final bid validity period, while the bid validity
period itself was prescribed as 90 days from the date of opening of the
technical bid. The tender evaluation authority, upon examination of the
documents submitted by the bidders, found that the bank guarantee
furnished by the petitioners was valid only up to 18.10.2025, whereas
the required validity period extended beyond that date. On account of
this deficiency, the technical bid of the petitioners was declared
disqualified. On the other hand, the bank guarantee submitted by
respondent No.4 was found to be valid up to 02.01.2026 with claim
expiry date extending much beyond that period, and therefore the bid
submitted by respondent No.4 was treated as compliant with the
conditions of the NIT.
13. The petitioners have attempted to demonstrate that the bid security
ought to have remained valid up to 04.01.2026 and that the respondents
have subsequently altered their stand by stating that the validity was
required only up to 02.01.2026. However, upon careful examination of
32
the record, it appears that the difference sought to be highlighted by the
petitioners arises essentially from the manner in which the period of
validity has been calculated and not from any deliberate alteration of the
tender conditions. In any event, even if the interpretation suggested by
the petitioners is accepted for the sake of argument, the position
remains that the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioners was valid
only up to 18.10.2025, which is substantially shorter than either of the
dates suggested by the parties. Therefore, the petitioners were clearly
not compliant with the mandatory requirement of bid security validity.
14. It is well settled that in matters relating to government tenders and
award of contracts, the terms of the tender document are to be strictly
adhered to and the tendering authority is the best judge of its
requirements. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with the interpretation of
tender conditions adopted by the authority which has issued the tender,
unless such interpretation is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or wholly
unreasonable.
15. The scope of judicial review in such matters has been authoritatively laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India,
(1994) 6 SCC 651 wherein it was held that courts do not sit as appellate
authorities over administrative decisions taken in contractual matters
and judicial review is confined only to examining the decision-making
process. The Court emphasized that the Government must have a
certain freedom of contract and that the court should exercise restraint
while reviewing decisions taken by expert bodies in tender matters.
33
16. Similarly, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that judicial review in tender matters is
intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or bias, and not
to examine whether the decision taken by the authority is the most
correct or desirable one. The Court further cautioned that attempts by
unsuccessful bidders to challenge tender decisions based on minor
technical or procedural issues should ordinarily be discouraged, as
interference in such matters may delay public projects and adversely
affect public interest.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle in Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16
SCC 818 wherein it was held that the interpretation of tender conditions
primarily falls within the domain of the tendering authority and the court
should not substitute its own interpretation unless the decision is
arbitrary or irrational. Courts must respect the commercial wisdom of the
authority responsible for executing the project.
18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it
becomes evident that the decision taken by the respondent authorities to
disqualify the petitioners was based upon objective evaluation of the
documents submitted by the bidders and in accordance with the tender
conditions. The petitioners admittedly failed to furnish a bank guarantee
that remained valid for the period required under the NIT. Such a
condition relating to bid security is an essential requirement of the tender
process, and non-compliance with the same necessarily results in
disqualification of the bid.
34
19. The contention of the petitioners that the respondents have adopted
inconsistent positions with regard to the calculation of the validity period
also does not advance their case in any meaningful manner, for the
simple reason that even on the interpretation suggested by the
petitioners themselves, the bank guarantee submitted by them did not
satisfy the mandatory requirement of validity.
20. It is also pertinent to note that the tender evaluation process involves
technical and commercial considerations which fall within the expertise
of the tendering authority. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution ordinarily refrain from interfering with such decisions
unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of
statutory provisions. In the present case, no such circumstance has
been demonstrated by the petitioners.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish any arbitrariness,
mala fides or illegality in the decision-making process adopted by the
respondent authorities while evaluating the bids submitted in response
to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 04.08.2025. The petitioners
admittedly did not comply with the mandatory requirement relating to the
validity of the bid security and, therefore, the respondent authorities
were justified in declaring the technical bid of the petitioners as
disqualified.
22. The law relating to judicial review of tender matters, as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular, Jagdish Mandal and Afcons
35
Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) clearly mandates that the court should
exercise restraint in interfering with contractual and commercial
decisions of the State unless the action complained of is patently
arbitrary or actuated by mala fides. In the present case, the decision of
the respondent authorities appears to have been taken strictly in
accordance with the tender conditions and in the larger interest of
maintaining fairness and uniformity in the tender process.
23. This Court is therefore not inclined to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with
the impugned action of the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition
being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
