1. Tender bid submitted with forged documents; new documents submitted after deadline; tenderer refused consideration. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1972
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
PSEB and others - Appellants
Versus
Bhatia International Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5170 of 2005, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13654 of 2005
Decided On : 22-08-2005
Important Points
A court cannot extend the deadline for submitting essential documents required for a valid tender bid, nor should it grant indulgence to a party that has submitted forged documents.
Subject
Administrative Law - Government Contracts and Tenders
Headnote
(A) Tender Law - Submission of technical bids - Extension of deadline - Validity of documents - High Court cannot extend the last date for submitting documents necessarily required to be filed with a tender to make it a valid bid (Para 3).
(B) Judicial Indulgence - Submission of forged documents - A party whose employee submitted forged documents along with a tender bid should not be shown any indulgence by the court (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
Tenders were invited for the supply of coal, requiring the submission of technical and financial bids. The respondent submitted documents by the specified deadline, but the majority of these documents were found to be forged. The respondent attributed this to an employee. Subsequently, the respondent submitted a new set of documents after the expiry of the deadline, which the appellants refused to consider. The High Court directed the appellants to consider the technical bid based on the documents submitted after the deadline.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in extending the deadline for the submission of documents essential to make a tender bid valid. Furthermore, the respondent, having submitted forged documents, was not entitled to the indulgence shown by the High Court.
Issues: Whether a court can extend the deadline for submitting documents necessary for a valid tender bid and whether a party that submits forged documents is entitled to judicial indulgence.
Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot extend the submission deadline for documents that are necessarily required to make a tender bid valid. Additionally, a party that submits forged documents through its employee does not deserve judicial indulgence (Para 3).
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Judicial Indulgence - Submission of forged documents - A party whose employee submitted forged documents along with a tender bid should not be shown any indulgence by the court (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
Tenders were invited for the supply of coal, requiring the submission of technical and financial bids. The respondent submitted documents by the specified deadline, but the majority of these documents were found to be forged. The respondent attributed this to an employee. Subsequently, the respondent submitted a new set of documents after the expiry of the deadline, which the appellants refused to consider. The High Court directed the appellants to consider the technical bid based on the documents submitted after the deadline.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in extending the deadline for the submission of documents essential to make a tender bid valid. Furthermore, the respondent, having submitted forged documents, was not entitled to the indulgence shown by the High Court.
Issues: Whether a court can extend the deadline for submitting documents necessary for a valid tender bid and whether a party that submits forged documents is entitled to judicial indulgence.
Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot extend the submission deadline for documents that are necessarily required to make a tender bid valid. Additionally, a party that submits forged documents through its employee does not deserve judicial indulgence (Para 3).
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Tenderer argued new documents submitted after deadline should be considered. (Para 2 )
3. Court cannot extend last date for tender documents; party submitting forged documents should not be shown indulgence. (Para 3 )
4. A court cannot extend the deadline for submitting tender documents; a party whose employee submitted forged documents is not entitled to indulgence. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; writ petition dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Can a court extend the last date for submitting documents required to be filed with a tender bid?
No, the High Court could not extend the last date for submitting such documents as were necessarily required to be filed with the tender to make it a valid tender bid. (Para 3 )
7. Should a party whose employee submitted forged tender documents be granted any indulgence by the court?
No, such a party should not be shown any indulgence by the court. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
R.C. Lahoti, CJI.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants invited tenders for supply of coal. NIT is dated 1-4-2005. The tender bids were required to be in two parts: (i) technical bid, and (ii) financial bid. The last date for submitting the tender bid was 27-4-2005. The respondents technical bid was found to be not qualified. There were 22 documents filed by the respondent with tender documents on 27-4-2005. Admittedly, most of the documents, if not all, were forged. The respondent placed the liability for submitting such forged documents on one of its employees. Obviously, the appellants are not concerned with this as it is a matter between the respondent and its employee. Subsequently, the respondent submitted another set of 18 documents, all new, and which were not filed by it with the appellants on or before the expiry of last date for submitting the tender documents. The appellants refused to take these documents into consideration. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. Vide the impugned order dated 15-6-2005 the High Court finally disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants herein to consider the technical bid of the respondent herein on the basis of the documents "now submitted" in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The High Court could not have extended the last date for submitting such documents as were necessarily required to be filed with the tender to make it a valid tender bid. In addition, we find that the petitioner in the High Court (i.e. the respondent before us) whose employee entrusted with the job of submitting the tender filed documents therewith which are admittedly forged should not have been shown any indulgence by the High Court.
4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 15-6-2005 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is directed to be dismissed. The interim order dated 13-7-2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. The appellants shall proceed to finalise the tender bid based on the documents, as were submitted on or before the last date appointed for submitting the tender bid accompanied by documents.
Appeal allowed.
