The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot dismiss a writ petition challenging a tender award at the admission stage without analyzing substantive allegations of discrimination and bias, and must hear the successful bidder to ensure a fair disposal on merits.

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 21.04.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 884 of 2005. The appellant is a manufacturer of various membrane

technology systems and components using the Reverse Osmosis Process (ROP) for desalination of sea water and treatment of industrial effluents for converting them to reusable water. The appellant also designs, manufactures and services desalination plants. The appellant commenced its operations in 1993 for manufacturing sea water, desalination system using ROP and is also an ISO 900:2000 Company. The appellant is also registered with the Ministry of Defence, Director General of Quality Assurance and is the only Indian company to have supplied plants for submarines of the Indian Navy. Respondent No.1 called for a tender for design, manufacture, testing, supply, preservation, alignment, installation, setting to work, commissioning and trials of the complete supply of 4 units of 30 tonnes per day, self-sustaining reverse osmosis plants per ship for 3 ships of P15A class destroyer of Indian Navy to be built by the 1st respondent vide tender dated 20.06.2002, 04.07.2002 and 12.09.2002. The appellant submitted its original techno- commercial and price bids as per the tender terms. The appellant also submitted the clarification sought for by the respondent No.1. Commercial discussions were also held between the parties. The appellant submitted its

supplementary price bid dated 11.05. 2004 and the technical bid dated 12.05.2004 as directed in the meeting dated 03.05.2004. The first respondent again sought technical clarifications from the appellant subsequent to the submission of supplementary price bid. The first respondent, by letter dated 23.06.2004, set out certain comments of the 3rd respondent on the revised technical offer submitted by the appellant and sought further clarifications from the appellant. The appellant submitted the technical clarifications as required. The first respondent once again sought technical clarification on 20.09.2004 and the appellant submitted the clarification sought. The first respondent by a communication acknowledged receipt of the appellant's facsimile communication dated 23.06.2004 and sought review and advice. The first respondent once again wrote to the appellant stating that it was in a position to open the price bids but that additional time was required to complete the process of obtaining internal approvals and, therefore, sought further extension of the validity period of the price bids till 31.01.2005. On 29.12.2004, the first respondent issued a letter to the appellant stating that an un-priced price format had not been submitted with the supplementary price bid of 12.05.2004, which was neither an essential condition nor complained of until then and hence it would not be considered and that a new supplementary price bid in the format annexed for only increase over the original technical specifications should be submitted on or before 05.01.2005 though the decision as per the meeting of 03.05.2004 was for submission of increase/decrease over the original TSP. The appellant, by letter dated 04.01.2005 addressed the first respondent to extend the advantages of advancements in technology leading to a reduction in price to respondent No.1. The appellant submitted the supplementary price bid as per the new format.

The first respondent had opened the original offer and the supplementary price bid in the new format but did not inform the appellant about the opening of the price bids. The appellant wrote to the first respondent enquiring about the status of the opening of the tender price bids but did not receive any reply. Several reminders were sent. The first respondent stated that the Management approval was granted on 18.02.2005 and that the letter of intent was given to respondent No.4. The first respondent sent a b