IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. of 2020

PETITIONER: AjayHero Ecotech Limited having its

registered office at Phase –III, Focal
Point Village Mangli, Ludhiana,
Punjab- 141010

- VERSUS –

RESPONDENTS: 1. The Union of India through

the
2. Seth Industrial Corporation
having its office at
3. Kohinoor Cycles Private
Limited Seth Industrial
Corporation having
registered office at
4. Department of Commerce
Through its Principal
Secretary, Ministry of
Commerce and Industry,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
110107
5. Government E-
Marketplace(GeM)
Through its CEO, Jeevan
 Tara Building Sansad
Marg, New Delhi – 110001
6. Government of Chhattisgarh
Through its Chief Secretary
Sh. Sunil Kumar, CM
Secretariat, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
7. Department of School
Education Government of
Chhattisgarh
8. Directorate of Public
Instructions(DPI) Indravati
Bhavan Block- C, First
Floor, Raipur-
492001.Chhattisg

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF
APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC., IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR
ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE

The petitioner, above named, most humbly and

respectfully begs to submit as under: -

1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: -

As mentioned in the cause title.

2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: -

As mentioned in the cause title.

3. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST

WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE:

That, this instant writ petition under article 226/227

of the constitution of India for seeking writ of

mandamus and any other writs for issuance of

appropriate order(s)/direction(s) to the respondents for

quashing the bid awarded to m/s Kohinoor Cycles

Private Limited by the Department of Public

Instructions, Chhattisgarh against bid no.

gem/2018/b/68069 dated 14.08.2018 and directing

the investigation of the bidding process under which

the bid was awarded to m/s. Kohinoor Cycles Private

Limited despite the same not fulfilling the technical

criteria of the bid and investigate other such bids that

might have been awarded in similar scenarios.

SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF: -

That, the present Writ Petition is being preferred

under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,

1950, for seeking Writ of Mandamus and/or any

 other Writs for issuance of appropriate order(s)/di-

rection(s) to the Respondents for quashing the bid

awarded to M/s Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited by

Department of School Education, Chhattisgarh

against bid document no. GEM/2018/B/68069

dated 14.08.2018 and directing the investigation of

the bidding process in which the bid was awarded

to M/s Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited despite the

same not fulfilling the technical criteria of the bid

and investigate other such bids that might have

been awarded in similar scenarios as there is an in-

dication of the fact that the present bidder either

does not have the capacity to provide the agreed

supplies or it is impossible for the bid winner to

complete the supply of quality goods at such rate.

This gives the reflection that the Department has

sufficient reason to believe that there is process flaw

wherein the incapable person has been awarded the

bid.

4. WHETHER CAVEAT FILED, IF YES, WHETHER

COPY OF THE PETITION SUPPLIED TO THE

CAVEATOR: -
 To the best of the knowledge of the petitioner,

no caveat has been filed, as the petitioner has not

received any caveat till date.

5. DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED: -

The petitioner most humbly submits and

declares that there is no any other alternative

efficacious remedy available to the petitioner except

to approach this Hon’ble Court to file the present

writ petition.

6. MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING

WITH ANY OTHER COURT OF LAW: -

The petitioner declares that the subject matter

of this petition is not pending in any other Court of

law.

7. DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE PETITION: -

The petitioner submits and declares that there

is absolutely no delay in filing the present writ

petition.

8. FACTS OF THE CASE: -

8.1) That, the petitioner Hero Ecotech Limited,

established in 2008 is a closely held Public Limited

company having its registered office at Ludhiana,

 Punjab and is the manufacturer of quality bicycles

and bicycle components currently having the

installed capacity of manufacturing of 12,00,000

bicycles annually.

8.2) That, the present petition is being filed by Mr. Rajiv

Kumar Sharma, who is the Authorized

Representative of the company (hereinafter referred

to as “AR”) of the Petitioner. That the AR has been

authorized to file and prosecute the present

Petitioner and to do all other acts necessary towards

the same, vide the resolution of the Board of

Directors dated: 18.02.2019. Copy of the resolution

of the Board of Directors is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P-1.

8.3) That, Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India,

Respondent No.2 is the Department of Commerce

situated at UdyogBhawan, New Delhi- 110107

under whose aegis Respondent No. 4 i.e.

Government-E-Marketplace(GeM) situated at Jeevan

Tara Building, SansadMarg, New Delhi - 110001

operates. That Respondent No. 4 is the Government

of Chhattisgarh situated at D.K.S Bhawan,

Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492001,

 Respondent No. 7 is the Department of School

Education i.e. the department on whose behalf the

bids were invited and Respondent No.8 is the

Directorate of Public Instructions situated at

Indravati Bhavan, Block C, First Floor, Raipur –

492001 who is the consignee for the impugned

tender. Respondent Nos. 2 and Respondent No. 3

are the bidders who were selected as L 1 and L2 i.e.

Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited and Seth Industrial

Corporation of respectively and given order to

supply the bicycles.

8.4) That, the present Writ Petition is being preferred

under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,

1950, for seeking Writ of Mandamus and/or any

other Writs for issuance of appropriate

order(s)/direction(s) to the Respondents for

quashing the bid awarded to M/s Kohinoor Cycles

Private Limited by Department of School

Education, Chhattisgarh against bid document no.

GEM/2018/B/68069 dated 14.08.2018 and

directing the investigation of the bidding process in

which the bid was awarded to M/s Kohinoor Cycles

Private Limited despite the same not fulfilling the

 technical criteria of the bid and investigate other

such bids that might have been awarded in similar

scenarios.

8.5) That, the brief facts leading to the filing of the

present petition are produced here as under;

i. That on 14.08.2018 the Bid notification by

Government e Marketplace (GeM) was issued

on behalf of School Education Department,

Chhattisgarh for 182476 bicycles amounting

to a total of Rs. 69,06,71,700/- (Sixty nine

crores six lacs seventy one thousand seven

hundred only). The above-mentioned bid doc-

ument contained the following Buyer Specific

Additional Terms and Conditions:

1. Scope of supply (Bid Price to include

all cost components): Supply Installa-

tion testing and Commissioning of Goods

2. Inspection charges shall be borne by

the supplier and it shall not be reim-

bursed by indenter to them at any

point in time. Cost of inspection shall

be factored in by the supplier in the

 cost of the product itself while sub-

mitting bid. The inspection agency

will conduct the inspection and sub-

mit the certificate to the supplier as

well as the buyers and consignees. The

bidder will be solely responsible for

pre-inspected material for Quality As-

surance including pre-despatch in-

spection/testing at manufacturer’s

site by IRCLASS

3. Dedicated toll Free telephone No. for

Service Support: Bidder/OEM must

have Dedicated Toll Free Telephone

No. for Service Support.

4. Timely servicing/ rectification of de-

fects during warrantee period: After

having been notified of the defects/ ser-

vice requirement during warrantee pe-

riod, Seller has to complete the required

Service/ rectification within time limit

specified. If the Seller fails to complete

service/ rectification with defined time

limit, a penalty of defined percentage of

 Unit Price of the Product shall be

charged as penalty for each week of delay

from the seller. Seller can deposit the

penalty with the Buyer directly else the

buyer shall have a right to recover all

such penalty amount from the Perfor-

mance Security(Performance Bank Guar-

antee)

(i)Time Limit for Service/rectification of

defects will be as defined in the Service

Level Agreement document for the

service.

(ii) Penalty per week for delay as

percentage of unit price of product will

be defined in the Service level Agreement

document for the service.

Seller to give compliance Yes/No while

submitting bid.

5. Availability of service Centres:

Bidder/OEM must have Service Centre

in the district of each Consignee’s Loca-

tion
6. The bidder must have at least three

years’ experience (ending month of

March prior to the bid opening) of provid-

ing similar type of service. To Central/

State Government/PSUs/Nationalised-

Banks/Reputed Organisations. Services

rendered with list of such Central/State-

Government/PSUs/Nationalised

Banks/Reputed Organisationswith dura-

tion of service shall be furnished. (Seller

to upload relevant documents as part of

bid submission. Buyer will verify the doc-

uments submitted by the seller.)

7. The bidder must have successfully ex-

ecuted/ completed similar services,

over the last three years i.e. current

financial year and the last three fi-

nancial years:- ( Seller to upload rele-

vant document as part of bid documents

submitted by seller)

1) Three similar completed services

costing not less than the amount

 equal to 40% (Forty per cent) of the

estimated cost; or

2) Two similar completed services

costing not less than the amount

equal to 50% ( Fifty per cent) of the

estimated cost; or

3) One similar completed service

costing not less than the amount

equal to 80% (Eighty per cent) of the

estimated cost.

This Bid is also governed by the General

Terms and Conditions”

A copy of the bid document is annexed herein

as ANNEXURE P-2.

ii. On August 14, 2018 the tender was floated.

iii. On August 21, 2018 an e mail was written to

Mr. J P Rath, Deputy Director , Department of

Public Instruction regarding clarification on

the eligibility criteria.

iv. On……………….. the bid was awarded to M/s.

Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited .

v. On ……………….a vague clarification received

from the concerned authority. Further, in a

 mail the concerned authority i.e. Mr. J P

Rath , Deputy Director , Department of Public

Instruction was received regarding confirma-

tion of supply of the bicycles on a rate match-

ing to the L1 bidder i.e. M/s. Kohinoor Cycles

Private Limited , if Hero Ecotech Limited given

an opportunity to supply the Bicycles. The

reason of this mail was beyond our under-

standing as if there are successful bidders ,

who already awarded the bid , why there shall

be alternate parties. This is indication of the

fact that the present bidder either does not

have the capacity to provide the agreed sup-

plies or it is impossible for the bid winner to

complete the supply of quality goods at such

rate. This gives the reflection that the Depart-

ment has sufficient reason to believe that

there is process flaw wherein the incapable

person has been awarded the bid.

vi. It is evident from the documents available in

the public domain that M/s. Kohinoor Cycles

Private Limited had not fulfilled even a single

point of Clause 7 of the Buyer Specific

 Terms and Conditions on Page No. 6/07 of

the Bid Document.

Hence, this writ petition on the following

amongst other grounds: -

9. GROUNDS: -

9.1) Because, the action of the respondents is arbitrary,

illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the present case.

9.2) Because, the impugned tender process is vitiated on

account of not satisfying the test of reasonableness

as enshrined under article 14 of the Constitution of

India, 1952, as the Respondent(s) have failed to

explain why M/s Kohinoor cycles Private Limited

had been awarded the tender despite clearly failing

the eligibility criteria enumerated in the bid

document. Furthermore, from the above chain of

events it is apparent that there has been a colorable

exercise of power on the part of the Respondent(s)

along with a clear element of biasness and

arbitrariness. It is most respectfully submitted that

where the reasons have not been disclosed by the

respondent(s) for awarding the tender to M/s

Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited.

 In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC

651, the Hon’ble Apex court has observed that the

principles of judicial review would apply to the

exercise of contractual powers by Government

bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or

favoritism. The same was upheld by theHon’ble

court in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Ors.

vs. BVG India Limited and Ors. (2018) 5 SCC

462that the test of reasonableness and

arbitrariness as laid down under article stating the

following:

“6. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the

Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting

or refusing a tender. There can be no question of

infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to

get the best person or the best quotation. The right to

choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary

power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for

any collateral purpose, the exercise of that power will

be struck down.”

9.3 Because, the impugned conduct of the

Respondent(s) is devoid of any merit and is liable to

be set aside prima facie on account of non-

application judicious and non discriminatory

approach which looks near to non application of

mind. It is further submitted that an authority has

exercised its vested powers in passing the order

mechanically and has ignored the facts and

circumstances of the case as held in the case. It was

held in the case of Jagannath v. State of Orissa

AIR 1966 SC 1140, wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court had ruled that the order of detention was

invalid as the Minister had not applied his mind to

all the grounds mentioned. Hence, the present

tender is also affected by the above ratio and is

therefore liable to be quashed on account of non-

application of mind by the Respondent(s). The

relevant extract of the judgement has been

reproduced herein for ready reference:

“137.The principal contention on behalf of the

petitioner in

relation to and against the affidavit of the

Home Minister is

that it is clear from a perusal of the affidavit

that the Minister

did not apply his mind in the matter of the

detention of the

petitioner. It is urged that the order in question

contains six

grounds of detention. These six grounds

practically cover all

the grounds.”

138. Such a discrepancy between the grounds

mentioned in the order and the grounds stated

in the affidavit of the authority concerned can

only show an amount of casualness in passing

the order of detention against the provisions of

s. 44 of the Act.

139. This casualness also shows that the mind

of the authority concerned was really not

applied to the question of detention of the

petitioner in the present case. In this view of

the matter we are of opinion that the petitioner

is entitled to release as the order by which he

was detained is no order under the Rule for it

was passed without the application of the mind

of the authority concerned.”

9.4. Because, it is apparent from the facts of

the matter that the authorities adopted the

process of decision making by putting vague

and open ended clause in the tender

document to favour one party i.e M/s.

Kohinoor Cycles Private Ltd. Reflecting the

arbitrary and irrational use of the power

vested in it. It was held by theHon’ble Court in

Shrenik Raja Roadways Transport

Contractor & Commission Agent vs.

Food Corporation of India &

Others2012(3) CGBCLJ 141had categorically

stated that interference in a tender or

contractual matter under article 226 shall be

exercised on two ground namely:

1. Whether the process adopted or decision

made by the authority is malafide or intended

to favour someoneor;

2. Whether the process adopted or decision

made by the authority is so arbitrary and

irrational that the court would come to the

 conclusion that such a decision could not have

been arrived by any responsible authority.

Hence, the present case satisfies the

aforementioned conditions and the same warrants

an intervention by the Hon’ble court. The relevant

portion of the judgement has been reproduced

herein for ready reference:

“22.Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or

contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial

review, should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by

the authority is mala fide or intended to favour

someone; OR Whether the process adopted or

decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the

court can say: "the decision is such that no

responsible authority acting reasonably and in

accordance with relevant law could have reached";

(ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers

are in the negative, there should be no interference

under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or

imposition of penal consequences on a

tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse

(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences,

dealerships and franchises) stand on a different

footing as they may require a higher degree of

fairness in action.”

9.5. Because, The conduct of the authorities was

not fair and reasonable in awarding the tender.

They have grossly failed to apply the Principle of

Natural Justice and necessary act of discipline

which was essential for Justice with the bidders.

Even when the information was requested under the

RTI Act, the concerned authorities denied the same

by taking the shelter of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Because, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s

decision in State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna

Shaw AIR 1990 SC 2205: 1991 Supp (1) SCC 41;

and Punjab SEB vs. Jit Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 118 at

para 20; holding that reasoned decision formed a

necessary act of discipline for the adjudicating

authority and was essential for justice.

Furthermore, the principle of fair play requires

recording clear and cogent reasons while

adjudicating upon the rights of the parties involved.

Hence, the impugned tender should be quashed on

account of the grounds mentioned above. The

relevant extract of the judgment has been

reproduced herein for ready reference:

“Giving of reasons is an essential element of

administration of justice. A right to reason is,

therefore an indispensable part of sound system of

judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the

purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving

justice, but also a valid discipline for the tribunal

itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the

essentials of justice”

It is further submitted that in Rani Laxmi Bai

Kshetriya Gramin bank v. Jagdish Sharan

Varshney (2009) 4 SCC 240, the Hon’ble Court

had held that:

“The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held

by a Constitution bench of this Court in S.N.

Mukherjee vs. Union of India, is that people

must have confidence in judicial or quasi-

judicial authorities. Unless reasons are

disclosed, how can a person know whether the

authority has applied its mind or not? Also,

giving of reasons minimizes the chances of

 arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential

requirement of the rule of law thatsome

reasons, at least in brief must be disclosed in a

judicial orquasi-judicial order even if it is an

order of affirmation.”

Therefore, the present tender process is liable to be

quashed on account of lack of reasoned decision on

the part of the Respondent(s) as the same is

violative of the principles of natural justice.

9.6.Because, the Respondent(s) have failed to appreciate

the clear and cogent fact that M/s Kohinoor Cycles

Private Limited had miserably failed to satisfy the

eligibility criteria prescribed under Clause 7 (1) (2)

and (3) of the “Buyer Specific Terms and

Conditions” as laid out in the bid document.

9.7. Because, a statutory authority must be rigorously

held to the standard by which it professes its

actions to be judged. Every action of the authority

must be informed with reason and should be free

from arbitrariness as it does not stand in the same

position as a private individual.

9.8. Because, the impugned award of the bid is also in

violation of the principle of promissory estoppel. It is

humbly submitted that where one party by his

words or conduct made a clear promise which is

intended to create legal relations or affect a legal

relationship to arise in the future, knowing or

intending that it would be acted upon by the other

party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact

so acted upon by the other party, the promise would

be binding on the party making it and it would not

be entitled to go back upon it as it would be

inequitable to allow the same.

9.9. Because, the terms mentioned in the buyer’s specific

paragraph are contradictory in itself. It has been

designed to award the contract to the pre-

determined beneficiary i.e M/s Kohinoor Cycles Pvt.

Limited.

9.10. Because, it is patently evident that only M/s

Kohinoor Cycles Private Ltd. has taken resort to the

buyer specific condition mentioned in para7. It is

self explanatory that the contract was awarded in

 collusion and connivance with the officials involved

in tender process.

9.11. Because, the above mentioned tender proceedings

are violative of the principles of natural justice and

other well established principles of law. It is

pertinent to mention herein that prior to the

awarding of the tender the Petitioner had made

numerous representations to the Respondent(s)

with clear and cogent evidence. However the same

was not acted upon for reasons best known to the

erring parties.

9.12. Because, despite being tasked with the

responsibility of verifying the documents submitted

by the bidder in light of clause 6 of the “Buyer

Specific Terms and Conditions”, the Respondent(s)

have clearly acted with malafide intention and

allowed M/s Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited to

qualify the technical bid round and proceed to

submission of financial bid.

9.13. Because, and without prejudice to the submissions

made above it is humbly submitted that the

impugned tender process coupled with the lack of

scrutiny of the technical bid submitted by the

applicants are also in breach of the doctrine of

Legitimate Expectations. It is humbly submitted

that the doctrine of legitimate Expectations is an

outcome of synthesis between the principle of

administrative fairness and the rule of estoppel. The

doctrine is based on the principle that good

administration demands observance of

reasonableness and the same cannot be deprived

even in the absence of a provision of law. It is

humbly submitted that doctrine of legitimate

expectations in procedural in character and is

based on the requirement of a higher degree of

fairness in administrative action, as a consequence

of the promise made or practice established as

rightfully held in the case of Ram Parvesh Singh

and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2006 (8) SCJ

721. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble

ApexCourt in Jitendra Kumar v state of Haryana

(2008) 2 SCC 161 andin M/s Sethi Auto Service

Station v Delhi Development Authority,AIR 2009

SC 904 had reiterated that the doctrine is grounded

in the rule of law as requiring regularity,

 predictability and certainty in Government’s dealing

with the public.

9.14. Because, in Union of India v Hindustan

DevelopmentCorporation 1993 SCC (3) 499, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that an

expectation can be inferred only if it is founded in

the sanction of law or custom or an established

procedure that is followed in regular and natural

sequence It must be justifiably legitimate. Hence the

Respondent(s) were bound to obey and duly observe

the necessary pre-conditions enumerated in the

document and non-adherence to the same without

any justification warrants scrutiny by the Hon’ble

Court. The relevant paragraph has been reproduced

herein forready reference:

“3.1. The claim based on the principle of

legitimate expectation

can be sustained and the decision

resulting in denial of such expectation can

be quashed provided the same is found to

be unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and

violative of principle of natural justice.”

Hence, in light of the fact that the normal custom/

established procedure with respect to a tender is

that the applicant who fulfills all the requisite pre

conditions (technical criteria/bid) and submits the

lowest bid thereafter which are verified by the

respective authorities is awarded the tender and any

departure for the aforementioned practice shall

invite the scrutiny of the Hon’ble court under the

ambit of judicial review.

The Hon’ble Apex Court had applied the principle of

procedural fairness in Navivoti Co-op. Group

Housing Society v. Union ofIndia AIR 1993 SC

155. Therefore, due to the lack of fairness on part of

the Respondents, the present award of tender to

M/s. Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited is liable to be

set aside. The relevant extract of the judgment is

reproduced herein for ready reference:

“ 32. It was held that the doctrine

imposed, in essence, 3 duty on public

authority to act fairly by taking into

consideration all relevant factors, relating

 to such legitimate expectation. Within the

contours of fair dealing, the reasonable

opportunityto make representation

against change of policy came in.”

9.15. Because, the entire process of the tender is

riddled with the element of malice and the same is

liable to be set aside on account of repeated

violations made during the acceptance of technical

bids till the final award of the tender to M/s

Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited.

9.16. Because, the impugned tender process and the

subsequent award have only been initiated to act as

a smoke screen to hide the nefarious and malafide

collusion on part of the M/s Kohinoor Cycles Private

Limited and the Respondent(s) as the impugned

tender award has been made without any merit and

the same is devoid of any legal or logical basis. That

despite the soundness of the grounds mentioned

above, the Respondent(s) have failed to take any

action against the said illegal, arbitrary, malafide

and unsound acts of the Respondent(s) resulting in

infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the

Petitioner as enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21

 of Constitution of India and also under other

legal/statutory rights.

9.17. Other grounds will be raised at the time of

hearing.

10. RELIEFS SOUGHT: -

The petitioner most humbly prays for the following

reliefs: -

10.1. The Hon'ble Court may Issue an appropriate

writ or direction, including a writ of Mandamus

against the erring Respondent(s) and set aside

the above-said impugned tender

GEM/2018/B/68069dated 14.08.2018and the

consequential award as the same is bad in law

and is liable to be set aside on the grounds

stated above.

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may order the scrutiny of

the impugned tender in regard of the flagrant

violations made and other similarly situated

tender(s) by any competent authority, the

progress of which may be monitored by the

 Hon’ble Court as there exists a strong

apprehension that similar violations might have

been committed in awarding similar tenders by

the state of Chhattisgarh.

10.3. The Hon'ble Court may order the stoppage of

dues to be paid to M/s Kohinoor Cycles Private

Limited as the same is in furtherance of a

tender which was void ab initio and amount

paid if any, would amount to misappropriation

of public funds and constitute a grave offence in

the eyes of the citizens of the country.

10.4. The Hon'ble Court may issue any other Writ,

Order (s), Direction(s) or any other relief as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

nature and circumstances of the present case in

the interest of justice.

Bilaspur. (Chaitanya Mahajan)

Dated: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

CERTIFICATE
 It is certified that due care has been taken in the

instant case to comply with provisions of Chhattisgarh

High Court Rules.

(Chaitanya Mahajan)

Bilaspur COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Dated : /03/2019
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR

Writ Petition (C) No. of 2019

PETITIONER: Hero Ecotech Limited having its

registered office at Phase –III, Focal
Point Village Mangli,
Ludhiana,Punjab- 141010

- Versus -

RESPONDENTS: The Union of India and others

INDEX

S.No. Particulars Annexures Page Nos.

1. Synopsis

2. Writ petition under

Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India
along with affidavit

3.

4.

5. Vakalatnama

Bilaspur. (Chaitanya Mahajan)

Dated: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR

Writ Petition (C) No. of 2019

PETITIONER: Hero Ecotech Limited having its

registered office at Phase –III, Focal
Point Village Mangli,
Ludhiana,Punjab- 141010

- Versus -

RESPONDENTS: The Union of India and others

SYNOPSIS

The petitioner, named above, most humbly and

respectfully begs to submit as under: -

That, this instant writ petition is being preferred under

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for

seeking Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writs for

issuance of appropriate order(s)/direction(s) to the

Respondents for quashing the bid awarded to M/s

Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited by Department of

School Education, Chhattisgarh against bid document

no. GEM/2018/B/68069 dated 14.08.2018 and directing

the investigation of the bidding process in which the bid

was awarded to M/s Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited

despite the same not fulfilling the technical criteria of the

bid and investigate other such bids that might have been

awarded in similar scenarios as there is an indication of

the fact that the present bidder either does not have the

capacity to provide the agreed supplies or it is

impossible for the bid winner to complete the supply of

quality goods at such rate. This gives the reflection that

the Department has sufficient reason to believe that there

is process flaw wherein the incapable person has been

awarded the bid.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

RELEVANT AUTHORITIES/JUDGMENTS

Constitution of India.

Bilaspur. (Chaitanya Mahajan)

Dated: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. of 2019

PETITIONER: Hero Ecotech Limited

- Versus –

RESPONDENTS: The Union of India and others

AFFIDAVIT

1. That, I am Rajiv Kumar Sharma S/o. Shri presently

Posted as ------------ and authorized representative in the
petitioner’s Company and as such fully conversant with
the facts of the case and in a position to swear this
affidavit.
2. That the content of attached petition has been drafted by
my counsel under my instructions and on the basis of
official record and content therein are true to my
knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

I Rajiv Kumar Sharma, the deponent above named do hereby

verify that contents of above affidavit made in paras 1 to 2 are
true to my personal knowledge and belief. Verified and signed
by me on this………, day of, March, 2019, at Bilaspur.

IDENTIFIED BY ME DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Writ Petition (C) No. of 2019

PETITIONER: Hero Ecotech Limited

- Versus –

RESPONDENTS: The Union of India and others

AFFIDAVIT

1. That, I am Rajiv Kumar Sharma S/o. Shri presently

Posted as ------------ and authorized representative in
the petitioner’s Company and as such fully conversant
with the facts of the case and in a position to swear this
affidavit.
2. That the content of attached petition has been drafted by
my counsel under my instructions and on the basis of
official record and content therein are true to my
knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

I Rajiv Kumar Sharma, the deponent above named do hereby

verify that contents of above affidavit made in paras 1 to 2 are
true to my personal knowledge and belief. Verified and signed
by me on this………, day of, March, 2019, at Bilaspur.

IDENTIFIED BY ME DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

I.A.NO……………/2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. of 2019

PETITIONER: Hero Ecotech Limited

- Versus –

RESPONDENTS: The Union of India and others

APPLICATION FOR STAY ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT/PETITIONER FOR STAYING THE
DISBURSEMENT OF THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OFTHE
BID/TENDER NO. GEM/2018/B/68069 DATED
14.08.2018

The petitioner named above, most humbly and respectfully

submitted as under:-

1. That the Applicant is filing the present application being

aggrieved of the bid document no. GEM/2018/B/68069

dated 14.08.2018 floated by the Respondent(s) and the

subsequent award passed in favour of M/s Kohinoor

Cycles Private Limited. The averments/ submissions

made in the accompanying writ petition may kindly be

read as part and parcel for the present application and

the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.

2. That it is apparent from the grounds raised in the Writ

Petition that the Appellant has prima facie a very good

 case in its favour and is likely to succeed in the case

against the Respondent(s).

3. That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of

the Applicant and it will cause irreparable injury and in-

calculable harm to the Appellant if the disbursement of

the payment to M/s Kohinoor Cycles Private Limited in

lieu of the impugned bid document is carried out by the

Respondents and the same is not stayed by the Hon’ble

Court.

4. That the interest of justice demands that during the

pendency of the present Writ Petition, the impugned

disbursement of payment to M/s Kohinoor Cycles Pri-

vate Limited be stayed as the Applicant including the

state of Chhattisgarh shall suffer irreparable loss which

cannot be stayed in terms of money.

5. An affidavit is being filed here with.

PRAYER:

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court be most graciously please to:

A. Allow the present application and grant an Ex-parte stay

of the disbursement of payment to M/s Kohinoor Cycles

Private Limited be stayed as, if the same are not stayed

by the Hon’ble Court it shall not only make the present

 appeal infructuous but shall also result in miscarriage of

justice.

B. Pass any other such order(s) as the Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in light of the facts and circum-

stances of the present case and in the interest of justice,

equity and good conscience.

Bilaspur. (Chaitanya Mahajan)

Dated: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER