M/S CHARANPAADUKA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:26231-DB
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
Date:
2026.06.29
17:44:03
+0530
SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3140 of 2026
M/s Charanpaaduka Industries Pvt Ltd Through Its Ar, Vaibhav Gupta,
Situated At- 11/371, First Floor, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-
110018
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Forest
And Climate Change Department, Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-
19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading And
Development) Cooperative Federation Limited Through Its Managing
Director, Van Dhan Bhawan Sector-24, Nava Sector- 24, Nava Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Garg, Advocate along with Ms.
Dyna Bajrang, Advocate
For State
:
Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G.
For Respondent No. 2
:
Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate

2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
29/06/2026
1. Heard Mr. Prem Garg, Advocate along with Ms. Dyna Bajrang,
Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank
Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State as
well as Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):
“ 1. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to
call for the records of the case from the respondent
no 2; and
2. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to
pass a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
directions thereby directing the respondent no. 2 to
decide the representation of petitioner sent to
respondent no. 2 vide e-mail(s) dated 08.06.2026 &
10.06.2026 before allowing the submissions of bid
against bidding document No.
GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026; and
3. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to
pass a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
directions thereby quashing the above mentioned

3
arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable terms and
conditions contained in bidding document No.
GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026 and its
Additional Terms and Conditions, in the interest of
justice and equity; and
4. This Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to
Pass any other order or relief which this Hon'ble
Court may deems fit, just and proper in the facts &
circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondent no. 2. ”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a reputed
manufacturer and supplier of footwear having more than 26 years of
experience in the shoe manufacturing industry and is a Micro Enterprise
registered under the MSMED Act, 2006. The respondent issued Bid
Document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026 through the
Government e-Marketplace (GeM) for procurement of approximately
12.40 lakh pairs of Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes with PU Sole
for Tendupatta Pluckers. Being an eligible and prospective bidder, the
petitioner intended to participate in the tender process, however, upon
examining the bidding document and its Additional Terms & Conditions
(ATC), the petitioner found several eligibility conditions and technical
requirements to be arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and contrary
to the settled principles governing public procurement, thereby
restricting fair competition and favouring only a handful of large entities.

4
4. That the bidding document neither provides any mechanism for a
pre-bid meeting nor any opportunity for prospective bidders to seek
clarification or raise objections regarding the tender conditions.
Consequently, the petitioner submitted detailed representations dated
08.06.2026 and 10.06.2026 through e-mail and Speed Post, pointing
out various illegalities and irregularities in the tender, including the
absence of a pre-bid consultation mechanism, application of an
incorrect BIS standard meant for safety footwear instead of casual
canvas shoes, excessive and disproportionate requirements relating to
past experience, annual turnover, ownership of four PU moulding
machines and solvency certificate, non-compliance with the MSMED
Act, 2006 and the Public Procurement Policy, 2012 by excluding Micro
and Small Enterprises, and unjustified deviation from the eligibility
criteria prescribed in the respondent's earlier tender for an identical
procurement. Despite receipt of the said representations, the
respondent failed to consider or decide the same, compelling the
petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned bidding document and its Additional Terms & Conditions
(ATC) are ex facie arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative
of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as the eligibility
conditions have been tailor-made to restrict participation to a handful of
large entities, thereby defeating the principles of fairness, transparency
and healthy competition in public procurement. It is contended that the

5
tender document has been issued in complete disregard of the
provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006, the Public Procurement Policy for
Micro and Small Enterprises, 2012 and the General Financial Rules,
2017, inasmuch as it does not provide for a pre-bid meeting or any
mechanism for seeking clarification, prescribes an incorrect BIS
standard applicable to safety footwear instead of casual canvas walking
shoes, imposes wholly disproportionate conditions regarding past
experience, annual turnover, ownership of four PU moulding machines
and solvency certificate, and effectively excludes Micro and Small
Enterprises from participating despite the statutory protections and
exemptions available to them. It is further submitted that the respondent
has substantially enhanced the technical and financial eligibility criteria
in comparison to its earlier tender for an identical procurement without
any rational basis or justification, thereby rendering the tender
conditions arbitrary, irrational and designed to favour selected bidders.
Learned counsel would further submit that, in the earlier tender floated
in the year 2024, the respondent had invited bids for the product
category "Walking Shoes (Q3)", whereas in the present tender dated
04.06.2026, the product category has been changed to "Safety
Footwear (V3) ISI Marked to IS 15298 (Part-2) (Q2)", despite the
procurement being for Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes. It is
submitted that the required product category corresponding to the
subject goods is not available on the GeM Portal and, therefore, even if
the petitioner attempts to submit its bid online, the GeM Portal does not
permit submission under the impugned category, thereby virtually

6
preventing eligible manufacturers from participating in the bidding
process. It is lastly submitted that despite detailed representations
submitted by the petitioner pointing out these illegalities and anomalies,
the respondent initially failed to consider the same, compelling the
petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits the
impugned bidding document and the Additional Terms and Conditions
(ATC) have been framed by the competent authority strictly in
accordance with the procurement requirements and applicable rules
with the object of ensuring participation of technically competent,
financially sound and credible bidders capable of executing the contract
within the stipulated time. It is submitted that there is no statutory
mandate under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 or any
other applicable provision requiring a pre-bid meeting in every
procurement, and the bid documents were made available on the GeM
Portal with adequate opportunity to seek clarifications through the
available mechanism. It is further submitted that since no specific
category for "Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes" was available on
the GeM Portal, the nearest available category was selected only for
operational purposes, whereas the actual technical specifications and
eligibility criteria were clearly prescribed in the tender documents and
ATC. Learned counsel further submits that the procuring authority is
fully competent to prescribe the applicable technical specifications, BIS
standards, eligibility conditions relating to past experience, annual

7
turnover, manufacturing infrastructure, PU sole machines and solvency
requirements, considering the magnitude, complexity, value and time-
bound nature of the procurement, and such conditions are uniformly
applicable to all prospective bidders without conferring any undue
advantage upon any particular entity. It is also argued that the criteria
cannot be termed arbitrary merely because they differ from those
adopted in earlier tenders, as each procurement is to be assessed
independently based on its own requirements. It is lastly submitted that
the allegations of favouritism, bias, mala fides and violation of the GeM
guidelines are wholly unfounded, no procedural illegality has been
committed in the tender process, and upon examination of the
petitioner's representations, no ground was found warranting
cancellation, suspension or withdrawal of the impugned tender.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
8. This Court has considered the stand taken by respondent No.2.
The record reflects that the impugned bidding document and the
Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) have been framed by the
competent authority keeping in view the nature, magnitude and
complexity of the procurement. It is also evident that there is no
statutory provision under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002
or any other applicable law mandating the conduct of a pre-bid meeting
in every procurement. The material on record further indicates that, in
the absence of a specific category for "Gents Casual Canvas Walking
Shoes" on the GeM Portal, the nearest available category was selected

8
for operational purposes, while the actual technical specifications and
eligibility criteria were separately prescribed in the bidding document
and the ATC. The eligibility conditions relating to BIS standards, past
experience, annual turnover, manufacturing infrastructure, PU sole
machines and solvency have been uniformly made applicable to all
prospective bidders with the stated object of ensuring participation of
technically competent and financially sound bidders. Merely because
the eligibility criteria differ from those contained in an earlier tender
would not, by itself, render the impugned conditions arbitrary or
discriminatory. The record also reveals that the petitioner's
representation has been considered and decided by a reasoned order
dated 23.06.2026.
9. This Court also considered the stand taken by the petitioner in his
submission that, in the earlier tender floated by respondent No.2 in the
year 2024, the product category on the GeM Portal was "Walking Shoes
(Q3)", whereas in the present tender dated 04.06.2026, the product
category has been changed to "Safety Footwear (V3) ISI Marked to IS
15298 (Part-2) (Q2)". It is not in dispute that the procurement under the
present tender is for Gents Casual Canvas Walking Shoes. The material
placed on record further indicates that the required item category
corresponding to the subject product is not available on the GeM Portal.
Consequently, the petitioner, despite being desirous of participating in
the bidding process, would be unable to submit its bid through the
online mode under the prescribed category, as the GeM Portal would
not accept the bid. Such a discrepancy between the product sought to

9
be procured and the category provided on the GeM Portal has the effect
of preventing the petitioner from participating in the tender process and
cannot be ignored by this Court while examining the validity of the
impugned tender conditions.
10. On being specifically asked by this Court to file a return, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that he does not wish to
file any return in the matter. He fairly submits that after the filing of the
present writ petition, the respondent has considered and decided the
representation submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2026,
which has been placed on record as Annexure P/9, and, therefore, the
relief sought by the petitioner in paragraph 10.2 of the writ petition
stands redressed. However, when called upon to justify the rationale
behind the additional terms and conditions incorporated in Bid
Document No. GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026, learned
counsel is unable to satisfactorily explain the basis for prescribing such
stringent eligibility conditions, particularly in the backdrop of the
previous tender floated by the respondent for substantially similar
procurement. In the absence of any cogent material demonstrating the
necessity or proportionality of the impugned conditions, this Court is of
the considered view that the eligibility criteria incorporated in the
impugned bidding document suffer from arbitrariness and have the
effect of restricting fair competition, thereby offending the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. Accordingly, the impugned Bid Document No.
GEM/2026/B/7621416 dated 04.06.2026, along with the Additional

10
Terms and Conditions (ATC), is quashed. The respondents are directed
to issue a fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) with such terms and
conditions as they may deem fit, in accordance with the applicable
statutory provisions and the governing principles of public procurement.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall forthwith
communicate this order today itself to the concerned authorities for its
immediate compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika