1. Tender for road user fee collection — Bidder quotes low amount — Request to rectify bid as per-day rate after opening — Rejection by authority — Writ proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 28 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Prakash Asphaltings And Toll Highways (India) Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mandeepa Enterprises And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11418 of 2025 (Arising Out Of Slp (Civil) No. 12510 of 2024)
Decided on : 12-09-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Government Contract – Sanctity of tender process is paramount and should be maintained at all cost – While benefit or accrual of more revenue to public exchequer is certainly an important aspect, equally important, is adherence to rules and conditions of tender; sanctity of tender process being paramount and should be maintained at all cost.
Government Contract – Sanctity of tender process is paramount and should be maintained at all cost – While benefit or accrual of more revenue to public exchequer is certainly an important aspect, equally important, is adherence to rules and conditions of tender; sanctity of tender process being paramount and should be maintained at all cost.
Subject
Administrative Law - Tender Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
Headnote
Government Contract – Tender – Rectification of financial bid – Permissibility – While judicial review is not excluded to assail administrative decisions even in matters of tenders and contract, Constitutional Courts should exercise utmost restraint in interfering with tender process unless threshold of judicial review are met – Proposition that equity and natural justice should be kept at bay during course of tender evaluation, while fully applicable to case of respondent, cannot be applied to judicial proceedings where tender evaluation is under judicial scrutiny, fairness and natural justice being integral to judicial process – Non-impleadment and consequential non-hearing of appellant by High Court, has vitiated impugned judgment and order – Expression ‘public interest’ in arena of commercial transactions cannot and should not be confined to any strait-jacket definition – While benefit or accrual of more revenue to public exchequer is certainly an important aspect, equally important, is adherence to rules and conditions of tender; sanctity of tender process being paramount and should be maintained at all cost – Mistake in quoting BOQ rate cannot be said to be an inadvertent or unintentional mistake – Allowing respondent to rectify such mistakes after finalization of financial bid would be highly improper as it would have effect of unsettling entire tender process – Impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court hereby set aside and quashed. (Paras 32, 42, 43, 44 and 45)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No. 1 had filed writ petition assailing action of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (State of West Bengal and its officials) refusing to treat respondent No. 1 as the highest bidder by permitting it to rectify its financial bid after the bidding process was over. After observing that there was no scope for interference, Single Judge dismissed writ petition.
Findings of Court:
In the present case, respondent No. 1 was not at all vigilant; rather, it displayed a very casual approach. In such circumstances, clause 5B(v) cannot be invoked to resurrect the bid of respondent No. 1 to make it H1. Clause 5B(v) of the Instruction to Bidders has to read conjointly with clause 4(g) of the notice inviting electronic bid.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Monish Panda, Adv. Mr. Anmoj Jassal, Adv. Ms. Amrita Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohisth Shivkumar, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Soan, AOR Mr. Akshay Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Ms. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Ayush Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Tuhin, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Monish Panda, Adv. Mr. Anmoj Jassal, Adv. Ms. Amrita Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohisth Shivkumar, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Soan, AOR Mr. Akshay Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Ms. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Ayush Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Tuhin, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Bidder claims bona fide mistake and higher state revenue — H1 bidder argues sanctity of tender process and violation of natural justice due to non-joinder. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
3. Clarification clauses cannot permit bid rectification — Sanctity of tender process outweighs potential revenue increase — Non-joinder of H1 bidder violates natural justice. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )
4. Sanctity of tender process and adherence to rules are paramount; bid rectification after opening is impermissible; necessary parties must be heard to satisfy natural justice. (Para 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside and quashed — Tendering authority permitted to finalize award in terms of original notice. (Para 45 , 46 )
6. Can a bidder rectify a financial bid after the opening process is complete by claiming a typographical error?
No. Rectification of BOQ rates after finalization of financial bids is impermissible as it unsettles the tender process. Clarification clauses for documents cannot be broadly interpreted to allow changes in bid amounts, especially when prohibited by specific tender conditions. (Para 30 , 32 , 41 )
7. Does the potential for higher revenue to the public exchequer justify allowing a bidder to correct an erroneous bid?
No. While revenue is an important criterion, the larger public interest lies in upholding the sanctity of the tender process, ensuring fairness, transparency, and strict adherence to rules to prevent favoritism and discrimination. (Para 39 , 40 , 44 )
8. Is the non-impleadment of the highest bidder (H1) in a challenge to the tender process a violation of natural justice?
Yes. When a court's directions adversely affect the status or rights of the H1 bidder, they are a necessary party. Failure to implead and hear them violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. (Para 37 , 38 , 43 )
9. What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to the award of government contracts?
Constitutional courts should exercise utmost restraint and only interfere if the process is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, or perverse. They should not interfere merely because a decision is not sound or to protect private interests. (Para 34 , 35 , 42 )
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta (High Court) in MAT No. 93 of 2024.
2. Be it stated that MAT No. 93 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No. 1 as an intra-court appeal against the final order dated 03.01.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition, WPA No. 29001 of 2023, filed by respondent No. 1.
3. Respondent No. 1 had filed the aforesaid writ petition assailing the action of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (State of West Bengal and its officials) refusing to treat respondent No. 1 as the highest bidder by permitting it to rectify its financial bid after the bidding process was over. After observing that there was no scope for interference, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
4. Aggrieved by such dismissal, respondent No. 1 preferred an intra-court appeal which was registered as MAT No. 93 of 2024. According to the Division Bench, the error in quoting the figure by respondent No. 1 was inadvertent; instead of quoting the price for the entire contract period of 1095 days, respondent No. 1 had uploaded per day amount of the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) of Rs. 9,72,999.00. Division Bench further observed that respondent No. 1 had promptly sought for correction of the error immediately after reopening of the price bids. Therefore, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal vide the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, further directing respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to evaluate the BOQ rate of respondent No. 1 by treating the amount offered by respondent No. 1 as the per day amount and then on that basis to compute the total amount for the entire contract period of 1095 days. However, the Division Bench was of the view that an opportunity should be granted by the tendering authority to the other bidders as well to match the price of respondent No. 1 and thereafter to take a final decision with regard to the award of contract.
5. It is this judgment and order which is under impugnment in the present proceeding.
6. At the outset, relevant facts may be noted.
7. A notice inviting electronic bid No. 7 of 2023-24 dated 17.10.2023 was issued by the Superintending Engineer and Project Director, Project Implementation Unit – I, Public Works (Roads) Directorate, Government of West Bengal for engaging complete Road User Fee (RUF) collection operator for RUF collection from commercial vehicles (non-passenger) at designated locations on few roads in the State of West Bengal. In this case, we are concerned with the following work:
RUF Collection with HNETC System Integration and Transaction Acquiring services at Fee collection plaza under NETC programme through NPCI approved acquirer bank including engagement of required man power for operation of Road User Fee collection plaza for Dankuni Chandannagar Mogra in Hooghly district SH 13.
8. The contract period is for 1095 days. While the annual potential collection was pegged at Rs. 21.60 crores, the earnest money deposit/bid security was fixed at Rs. 25,00,000.00. As per Clause 2 of the notice inviting electronic bid, there would be two bids: technical bid and financial bid, both of which would have to be submitted concurrently duly digitally signed in the website of the West Bengal Government. Clause 3 mentioned that the rates should be quoted both in words and in figures in specific format i.e. BOQ. In case of any discrepancy between words and figures, the rate quoted in words would be treated as the actual rate offered. After bidding, the selected bidder will be the H1 bidder who will offer the highest remittance for the contract period and will make necessary agreement with the condition that the accepted bid amount over the stipulated period will have to be deposited in advance as per payment schedule to the government account in lieu of RUF collection right.
9. Clause 4 lays d
