Locus Standi is Restricted to Aggrieved Participants in Challenges Against Contractual Extensions and Tender Processes.

The Petitioner challenged the action of the Directorate of Printing and Stationery, Government of Chhattisgarh, regarding a 2021 tender for empanelling printers.

Clause 22 of the tender stipulated a one-year contract period ending on 01.08.2022.

The Petitioner alleged that the State repeatedly and arbitrarily extended the contracts of Respondents No. 4 to 8 without issuing fresh tenders, thereby violating transparency and fair competition.

The Petitioner submitted a complaint to the Chief Secretary on 04.02.2025, but no action was taken.

Consequently, the Petitioner sought a direction to the State to decide on the complaint and produce records of the "illegal extensions".

1. Whether the Petitioner has the requisite locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the extension of government contracts/tenders when he was not a participant in the process.

2. Whether the administrative decision to extend existing contracts due to public exigency is subject to judicial review at the instance of a third party.

The Court primary applied the principle of locus standi as applicable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It reiterated the settled legal position that in matters arising out of contractual and tender processes, a petition is maintainable only at the instance of an "aggrieved party" or a person who participated in the tender process and whose legal or fundamental rights are directly affected.

The court also noted the principle of administrative discretion where extensions may be necessitated for continuity of essential services in public interest.

The Court examined whether the Petitioner demonstrated any direct legal injury.

It observed that the Petitioner had neither participated in the 2021 tender process nor shown how his individual legal or fundamental rights were infringed by the extensions granted to the private respondents.

The Court characterized the grievance as a "general challenge to administrative action" lacking any enforceable personal right.

By applying the doctrine of locus standi, the Court reasoned that since the Petitioner was not an aggrieved party in the contractual sense, he had no standing to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court to scrutinize the State's policy decisions or administrative extensions.

The Court concluded that the petition was misconceived as it sought to interfere in contractual and policy matters without a vested right.

Accordingly, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the writ petition at the threshold.