Bablu Shrivas vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Bablu Shrivas, participated in a tender process initiated by the Excise Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, for the allotment of a compound (ahata) annexed to a wine shop at Gandai. The petitioner was the second highest bidder, with Akash Yadav (respondent no. 5) being the highest bidder. As per Clause 7.4 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15.03.2024, the highest bidder was required to deposit the necessary amount within two days. Respondent no. 5 failed to do so. The petitioner, being the second highest bidder, claimed entitlement to the allotment. The Excise Commissioner, however, issued an instruction on 16.05.2024, stating that it was not necessary to offer the allotment to the second highest bidder if the highest bidder's claim was cancelled. The petitioner's representation challenging this decision was rejected by the Excise Commissioner via an order dated 04.06.2024, which is now under challenge before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that it is not disputed that the petitioner was the second highest bidder and that Clauses 7.4 and 7.5 of the NIT provided for offering allotment to the second highest bidder if the highest bidder failed to deposit the required amount. However, the Court noted that the State Government, through a circular dated 16.05.2024, had taken a policy decision not to allot compounds to the second or third highest bidders. This decision was based on observations of potential cartelization due to the bid differences between H-1, H-2, and H-3. The Court found no illegality in the rejection of the petitioner's representation and the issuance of the second NIT for the Gandai compound, as a policy decision had been taken by the State. Since no mala fide was alleged against this policy decision, it was considered beyond the scope of judicial review. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the second highest bidder, is entitled to the allotment of the ahata/compound at Gandai, given that the highest bidder failed to deposit the requisite amount, as per Clause 7.4 of the NIT dated 15.03.2024? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Clause 7.4 of the NIT clearly entitled the second highest bidder to the allotment upon the failure of the highest bidder to deposit the amount. The petitioner asserted readiness to deposit the required amount and sought to quash the Excise Commissioner's direction dated 16.05.2024, which disallowed offering the allotment to the second highest bidder. The petitioner contended that a general circular refusing the second highest bidder should not apply to their case. Revenue/State's Contention: The State counsel submitted that due to observed patterns in bid differences between the highest (H-1), second highest (H-2), and third highest (H-3) bidders across the state, a policy decision was taken at the highest level to not offer allotments to H-2 or H-3 bidders in such cases. Instead, these compounds were to be put up for a second tender. This policy decision was communicated via a circular dated 16.05.2024, and no case in the entire state saw an H-2 bidder being offered allotment after H-1's failure to deposit.