How ladies’s self-help group’s authorized battle led to scrapping of Rs 60-lakh tender in Chhattisgarh | India Information
3 min learnRaipurApr 10, 2026 07:10 AM IST
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket Thursday dominated in favour of a ladies’s Self-Assist Group (SHG), quashing a Rs 60-lakh tender floated by a authorities hospital in Jashpur district for meals companies for a yr.
“This courtroom has no hesitation in holding that the impugned motion of the respondents is unfair, violative of Article 14 (Proper to Equality) of the Structure of India,” the courtroom stated.
The petitioner is a ladies’s Self-Assist Group managing a restaurant, ‘Gad Kalewa’, at Jungle Bazar, Jashpur. It’s a registered Micro or Small Enterprise (MSE).
The petition states that on February 19, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Jashpur, floated a young on the GeM portal for offering meals for a yr, with a deposit of Rs 60,000. The eligibility situations required bidders to have a minimal common annual turnover of Rs 50 lakh for the final three years.
“Nonetheless, the bid doc itself expressly and unequivocally gives that if the bidder is MSE as per the newest orders issued by the Ministry of MSME, the bidder shall be granted full leisure from the eligibility standards regarding each ‘expertise standards’ and ‘bidder turnover’, topic to assembly the standard and technical specs,” it stated.
On March 30, the petitioner’s tender was rejected, stating it didn’t fulfil the turnover standards. Within the petition, the SHG argued that the turnover requirement was greater than that in one other district, which was Rs 15 lakh.
“In an identical tender floated for dietary companies at District Hospital, Balod, the minimal common annual turnover requirement was mounted at solely Rs 15,00,000, whereas within the current tender it has been arbitrarily enhanced to Rs 50,00,000 with none rational foundation. Such inconsistency clearly displays non-application of thoughts and renders the situation manifestly arbitrary,” the petition stated.
Story continues under this advert
Demonstrating a sample of arbitrary conduct by the respondents, counsel argued that the petitioner had “beforehand been awarded an identical contract for the time period 2024–2025, which was abruptly cancelled with out issuance of any discover or affording a chance of listening to, and the identical was put aside by this Hon’ble Court docket”.
Opposing the petition, the state submitted that the tender course of was performed strictly in accordance with the phrases and situations of the bid doc and relevant statutory provisions and procurement guidelines.
After listening to either side, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal quashed the tender. “In issues of public procurement, the State and its instrumentalities are required to stick strictly to the phrases of the tender and to behave in a way that’s truthful, clear, and non-discriminatory. Any deviation therefrom, notably one which ends in prejudice to a bidder, can’t be sustained in regulation,” the courtroom stated, including that the motion was “arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Structure of India, and unsustainable in regulation”, and that the tender course of “stands vitiated on account of such illegality”.
Keep up to date with the newest – Click on right here to observe us on Instagram
© The Indian Categorical Pvt Ltd
Leave a Reply