Nilesh Patel vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Facts

The petitioner, Nilesh Patel, participated in an e-tender process initiated by Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) for engagement of manpower. The tender required valid GST registration for participation. The petitioner alleges that the tender process lacked transparency and fairness, and that the contract was arbitrarily awarded to Respondent No. 3, M/s W N Electricals. The petitioner claims that Respondent No. 3's documents may have been incomplete or invalid, and the evaluation criteria were not followed impartially. He submitted a representation to CSPDCL on 08.04.2026 seeking an inquiry and to withhold the work order, but received no action, leading to the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the petition lacked merit and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Applying the well-settled proposition of law to the facts, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the tender process. The reasoning appears to be based on the principles of judicial restraint in contractual matters, emphasizing that constitutional courts should not exercise ex-ante jurisdiction to pre-empt executive actions and that the decision-making process, not necessarily the soundness of the decision, is subject to judicial review. The Court cited various Supreme Court judgments, including Jagdish Mandal, Mihan India Ltd., Central Coalfields Limited, and M/s. Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., to support the view that interference is warranted only if the process is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, or affects public interest, or if the employer deviates from essential terms without applying it to all bidders. In this case, the Court found no such vitiating factors were established by the petitioner. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender process conducted by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for Tender No. 5313 dated 23.02.2026 was vitiated by a lack of transparency, fairness, and adherence to prescribed procedure, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the tender process was arbitrary and non-transparent because the basis for declaring Respondent No. 3 as the lowest bidder (L1) was not disclosed. He argued that Respondent No. 3's bid might not have met eligibility conditions or was deficient, yet it was accepted without proper scrutiny. The petitioner asserted that a level playing field was not ensured, defeating the object of competitive bidding and protecting the public exchequer. He also argued that the respondents failed to act on his representation, leaving him with no efficacious alternative remedy. Respondents' arguments: Respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that the tender process was conducted strictly according to its terms and conditions and applicable rules through a transparent e-bidding system. They asserted that Respondent No. 3 was declared L1 based on objective evaluation and fulfillment of eligibility criteria. They claimed the allegations of arbitrariness and lack of transparency were unfounded and that the petitioner's mere non-selection did not constitute a cause of action. They also argued that the petition was premature and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy.