Back
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
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.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of legal proceedings regarding bid contest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of tender submission process and requirements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. respondent's request for bid rectification. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. high court's judgment on bid rectification. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. arguments by parties in response to court findings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. judicial review and criteria for tender processes. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. judgment relating to unintentional mistakes in bids. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 8. final decision and principles reinforcing tender integrity. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
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:
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
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, equ....
The failure to quote a bid price in the prescribed format renders a financial bid non-responsive, as per the terms of the tender document.
The scope of judicial review in contractual matters is severely limited, and in the field of public works, due deference must be given to the decisions of the State as the activities that are underta....
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
public authorities must be left with the same liberty as they have in framing the policies - Contracts are legally binding commitments and they commit the authority which may be held to be a State wi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
