The main legal point established in the judgment is the implied power of the authority conducting the tender process to modify or relax tender terms in extraordinary situations, ensuring fair and reasonable treatment and adherence to tender terms and conditions.

JUDGMENT

I.P. Mukerji, J. - This appeal arises out of a tender. The facts are unique. This case gives occasion to us to formulate some new principles of law.

2. First, some statements of the applicable law need to be noticed. One who is entrusted with considering bids or offers in response to an invitation to tender made by the government or a body akin to it, is obliged to strictly follow the tender rules and instructions. He cannot discard any such norm as 'a pedantic approach or else it would encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to the rule of law and our constitutional values'. Otherwise, 'the rule of law should be a casualty'......... 'relaxation or waiver.....in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness' and promote 'manipulation and 'picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts....'. This was stated by Justice Quadri delivering the judgment in W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2001) 2 SCC 451.

3. In B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 548 Mr. Justice Satya Brata Sinha delivering the judgment of the highest court held that under the rules the employer should have the power to relax certain terms and conditions of the tender. Only then he could relax them and to the extent permitted only. If there was no power to relax them, the employer could not relax any term. The power to relax any term could also be derived from the practice followed in the past. If the power existed then it ought to be exercised in a 'fair, reasonable and bonafide' manner.

4. Again in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, Mr. Justice Lokur cautioned the courts against interference with the decision making process in a tender unless it was so arbitrary or irrational or perverse that the court could say that no responsible authority acting reasonably and lawfully would have taken the decision. The terms and conditions of a tender had to be strictly adhered to. The Supreme Court opined:-

'13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision- making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision.

14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous - they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word 'metro' in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.'

Now, the facts of the case in brief.

5. The appellants (hereinafter appellant) bought five tank trucks on 23rd March, 2021 and 9th April, 2021. On 15th June, 2021 the registering authority registered two of the tank trucks and on 17th September, 2021 registered the other three.

6. The respondent corporation (hereinafter respondent) on or about 25th August, 2021 made an invitation inviting offers from eligible persons to provide fifty two tank trucks of 16 MT and above weight to them for their Paradip terminal. The last date for submitting bids in terms of the tender was 1st November, 2021.

7. This litigation arises out of the following dispute. According to the terms and conditions of the tender as interpreted by the respondent, the appellant at the time of submission of the bid had to possess the registration certificates of tank trucks it had offered t