The High Court clarified that when a key document (such as a completion certificate) supporting a contractor’s eligibility is withdrawn by the competent authority after the writ petition is filed, the claim challenging disqualification from the tender process cannot survive. The judgment upholds existing precedent on judicial restraint in tender matters and is binding authority for administrative law and public procurement cases in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5453/2025 of M/S BAIJNATH AGRAWAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010435402025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Chhattisgarh; persuasive for other High Courts and authorities dealing with tender challenges where key supporting documents are withdrawn by issuing authorities |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing approach of judicial non-interference where administrative decisions are rendered unchallengeable by withdrawal of critical documentary evidence |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law, Public Procurement Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a contractor can sustain a challenge to tender disqualification based on evidence (such as a completion certificate) if that evidence is subsequently withdrawn by the issuing authority during the writ proceedings. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the withdrawal of the certificate relied on by the petitioner nullified the basis of his claim. Once the very foundation (the completion certificate allegedly proving non-pendency of work/payment) was withdrawn by the competent authority, there was no residual legal ground to contest the disqualification. Given these facts, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, an “A” Class contractor, was disqualified from a tender for allegedly not disclosing “work in hand” and not meeting bid capacity as per NIT. He relied on a completion certificate showing the relevant work as completed. During the proceedings, this certificate was withdrawn by the issuing authority, undermining the petitioner’s claim. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar administrative/tender disputes |
| Follows | Affirms established principles of judicial restraint in tender matters, particularly where supervening events (withdrawal of vital documents) remove the basis of challenge |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment confirms that if a petitioner’s eligibility in a tender is based exclusively on a document that is subsequently withdrawn by the issuing authority, the writ petition becomes infructuous and no relief can be granted.
- Lawyers challenging administrative actions in tenders must ensure continued validity and subsistence of supporting documentary evidence throughout the litigation.
- The Court demonstrates strict adherence to documentary supremacy in administrative disputes – if a petitioner’s foundational document is invalidated, further judicial review is foreclosed.
- Petitioners should anticipate the risk of withdrawal of such certificates by authorities during litigation and consider seeking interim protections where possible.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the petitioner’s argument that all eligibility criteria were satisfied and that disqualification was based on a misunderstanding of “work in hand,” which was clarified by a completion certificate.
- The State/respondents submitted that the certificate relied upon by the petitioner had been withdrawn by the competent authority, with an amended order issued before the hearing.
- Upon confirming the withdrawal of the certificate, the Court found that the foundation of the petition – i.e., proof that the relevant contractual obligation was complete and not “in hand” – no longer existed.
- The Court therefore held that nothing more survived for adjudication, as the petitioner’s sole evidence of eligibility had been negated by the withdrawal, rendering the matter infructuous and not requiring further judicial interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Disqualification was arbitrary and founded on an erroneous assumption that a completed work was still “in hand.”
- The contractual work in question had been completed, completion certificate issued, and all dues cleared.
- No rule required disclosure of completed works; all ongoing works were duly declared.
Respondent (State):
- The completion certificate forming the basis of the petitioner’s claim had been withdrawn officially by an amended order.
- As the certificate was no longer valid, the entire basis of the writ petition collapsed.
- No further relief was possible; the writ petition was now infructuous.
Factual Background
The case concerned a government tender for canal lining works in Chhattisgarh, for which the petitioner (an “A” Class contractor) was disqualified on grounds of furnishing misleading information regarding “work in hand” and allegedly not fulfilling bid capacity criteria. The petitioner argued that he did disclose all relevant ongoing works and had completed the work in question, supported by a completion certificate and proof of no dues. However, during the writ proceedings, the relevant completion certificate was withdrawn by the authorities, undermining the petitioner’s claim.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment referred to the specific terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), especially regarding the disclosure of “work in hand” and eligibility criteria.
- No direct interpretation or substantial analysis of a statutory provision was undertaken, but the Court emphasized that compliance with the NIT’s express requirements, and the existence/validity of supporting certificates, is crucial for sustaining a writ challenge in tender matters.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There was no dissenting or separate concurring opinion; both judges concurred in dismissing the petition as infructuous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedent or change to evidentiary requirements was set in this judgment. The Court acted on the withdrawal of a key document and dismissed the case without further inquiry.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and strictly follows the existing doctrine of limited judicial intervention in administrative tender decisions, especially where core evidence is withdrawn by the issuing authority.