Chhattisgarh High Court declines interference in SBI catering tender dispute involving GST ambiguity

Background of the dispute

The matter in Bhartiya Caterers And Enterprises Vs State Bank of India (Chhattisgarh High Court) arose out of a tender floated by State Bank of India for providing breakfast, lunch and dinner to trainees at Bhartiya State Bank Gramin Swarojgaar Prashikshan Sansthaan, District Raigarh (C.G.).

Respondent No.1 issued a tender notice dated 10.01.2026, published in the local newspaper “Kelo Pravaah”, prescribing a base price of Rs.140/- per person per day for catering services. Both the petitioner and Respondent No.2 submitted quotations at Rs.140.01.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking:

  • Quashing of the tender finalized on 21.05.2026 in favour of Respondent No.2
  • A direction to initiate a fresh tender process in reference to the notification dated 10.01.2026
  • Any other appropriate relief and costs

The central grievance was that the petitioner’s bid was rejected, while the bid of Respondent No.2, who had quoted the same rate, was accepted.

Factual matrix placed before the Court

Petitioner’s business and prior engagement

  1. The petitioner is engaged in catering services and is registered under the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 2017.
  2. The petitioner claimed adequate experience and asserted that it had been previously awarded a contract by Respondent No.1 to provide food to trainees from 02.11.2025 to 03.06.2026.
  3. In respect of this earlier contract, the petitioner alleged that a sum of Rs.11,28,236/- remained unpaid.

The new tender and bidding

  • Under the tender notice dated 10.01.2026, Respondent No.1 invited quotations for catering services.
  • The tender terms and conditions were issued along with the notice.
  • The petitioner stated that the tender portal was opened on 21.05.2026, and it participated as an eligible and experienced bidder.
  • The base rate fixed was Rs.140/- per person per day.
  • Both the petitioner and Respondent No.2 quoted Rs.140.01.

The petitioner’s specific contention was that the tender did not clearly state whether the base rate of Rs.140/- was inclusive or exclusive of GST. Proceeding on its own understanding, the petitioner’s quotation indicated that GST would be borne by Respondent No.1.

On 21.05.2026, the tender process was closed; the petitioner’s offer was rejected and Respondent No.2’s quotation was accepted.

Representation and follow-up by the petitioner

After rejection of its bid, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.06.2026 to Respondent No.1. In this representation, the petitioner:

  • Explained that its quotation was based on its understanding regarding GST
  • Claimed that there was ambiguity in the tender terms on inclusion/exclusion of GST in the base price
  • Expressed willingness to supply food at the earlier rate of Rs.109/- per plate (under the previous contract)

The petitioner asserted that Respondent No.1 informally assured that its grievance would be examined, but no decision was formally communicated.

Additional challenges raised

The petitioner also argued that:

  • The earlier contract had been extended vide letter dated 14.10.2025, and yet outstanding dues of Rs.11,28,236/- had not been released.
  • A fresh tender should not have been processed before clearing its alleged outstanding dues.
  • There was an approximate five-month gap between publication of the tender notice on 10.01.2026 and opening of the tender on 21.05.2026, which, according to the petitioner, was unexplained and arbitrary.
  • The tender terms did not prescribe a specific time frame for completion of the tender process, which was urged as another ground of arbitrariness.

On these bases, the petitioner sought judicial review of the rejection of its quotation and the decision to award the contract to Respondent No.2.

The High Court framed its examination essentially around the following questions: