Ashok Kumar Mittal (Engineer And Contractor) vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mittal, an 'A' class contractor registered with GST, participated in a tender floated by the Water Resources Department for the Mand Diversion Scheme. The tender had a probable contract amount of Rs. 2933.02 lacs and required an earnest money deposit of Rs. 5.00 lacs. The petitioner submitted his tender online with an FDR of Rs. 5.00 lacs. However, the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that his tender was liable for rejection and potential blacklisting because he failed to submit the physical receipt of the TDR. Despite the petitioner's submission that the FDR was deposited within time, the authorities cancelled his tender and forfeited the earnest money, citing clause 2.1.5(A) of the tender document for failure to submit the TDR in physical form. The petitioner then requested the issuance of the work order as he was the L-1 bidder.

Held

The Court considered that the entire tender proceedings, in which the petitioner was declared L-1, had already been cancelled by the respondent authority on 27.09.2024. The Court also noted that a show-cause notice for blacklisting had been issued to the petitioner. In light of these facts, the Court deemed it appropriate to quash the issuance of the show-cause notice for blacklisting. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondent authorities to release the TDR/FDR of Rs. 5,00,000/- submitted by the petitioner. The Court also permitted the petitioner to participate in fresh tenders. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether the initial rejection and forfeiture were illegal or arbitrary, but rather focused on the subsequent cancellation of the tender and the release of the earnest money. The issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to the work order was rendered moot by the cancellation of the tender proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner's tender and forfeiting the earnest money on technical grounds, without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary and illegal? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a work order as he was declared the L-1 bidder? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he had submitted the TDR/FDR of Rs. 5.00 lacs in favour of the respondent well within the stipulated time and along with the online tender form. He argued that the authorities failed to appreciate this fact and took action on purely technical grounds ex-parte, without providing a due opportunity. He asserted that he met the eligibility criteria and submitted all necessary documents, including the FDR, and therefore, should be issued the work order. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that it was an online tender, and after the bid opening on 15.12.2023, the petitioner, as the lowest bidder, was required to submit a physical copy of the TDR within seven working days. They stated that a mail was sent to the petitioner on 15.12.2023 informing him about the tender opening. They also submitted that the entire tender proceedings were cancelled on 27.09.2024, and a subsequent NIT was also cancelled. They conceded that the TDR of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be released to the petitioner.