Laxmi Charan Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Laxmi Charan Agrawal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondents including M/s Ramsaran Singh (Respondent No. 5) and M/s Chikhalkar And Co. (Respondent No. 6). The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 5 engaged in fraudulent practices in public tender bids by misrepresenting credentials. Specifically, it was alleged that Respondent No. 5 used the experience, turnover, profits, and net worth of a partnership firm in its new LLP (M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP), using the same PAN and GST number. Respondent No. 6 was accused of fabricating financial data and issuing forged certificates for Respondent No. 5's participation in bids. The petitioner sought investigation, injunction against Respondent No. 5 from future bids, and action against Respondents No. 5 and 6 for alleged fraud and forgery.

Held

The Court held that the controversy raised by the petitioner pertains to alleged misrepresentation of credentials, the validity of merger/conversion, and the use of financial data by Respondent No. 5. These issues involve seriously disputed questions of fact that necessitate a detailed examination of evidence. Consequently, such matters are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court referred to established Supreme Court precedents, including Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, which state that judicial review in contractual matters is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision, and that courts will not interfere if the decision is bona fide and in the public interest, even if procedural aberrations exist. The Court found no patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions or tender conditions on the face of the record. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can adjudicate on allegations of misrepresentation of credentials, validity of merger/conversion, and use of financial data in public tender bids, which involve disputed questions of fact? (Turning on Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 5 unlawfully relied on the experience, turnover, and financials of a separate partnership firm, vitiating the bidding process. It was argued that Respondent No. 5, in collusion with Respondent No. 6, used financial data from periods when the LLP did not exist and produced unverified merger documents. The petitioner also highlighted the impermissible use of the same PAN across distinct legal entities and non-compliance with the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, regarding merger approvals. The petitioner asserted that despite these irregularities, no action was taken by the authorities. State/respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petition was devoid of merit and raised disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It was submitted that Respondent No. 5 participated in the tender process according to prescribed conditions, and the evaluation was conducted without arbitrariness. The State contended that issues regarding merger, financial credentials, and PAN usage require detailed factual examination by competent authorities and are not suitable for a writ petition. The State further argued that no violation of statutory provisions or tender conditions was made out, and the petitioner, as an unsuccessful bidder, was attempting to stall the process.