Rounding off of financial bids in tender processes is permissible and does not invalidate the tender, even if one bid is marginally below the threshold set by guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ.)

The instant writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6372/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a contractor registered in Class-I(A) category under Public Works Department, Government of Assam.

In response to a Short Notice Inviting E-Tender issued by the Chief Engineer (Technical), Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Guwahati, in relation to construction of 2 Nos. of RCC Drain at Sorbhog Municipal Board, the appellant submitted his bid along with the respondent No.3 herein as well as in the writ petition.

The Financial Bids submitted by the appellant as well as the respondent No.3 were declared responsive by the Department, and the respondent No.3 was declared as L-1 bidder whereas the appellant was declared as L-2 bidder.

3. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant approached the Writ Court with the contention that as per Clause 29(IV) of the NIT, any Financial Bid which is beyond 10% below the estimated cost of work is not required to be considered for award of the contract and the same is liable to be rejected as non-responsive.

4. It is also contended that as per Clause 26 (III) of the NIT, a Financial Bid not substantially responsive is required to be rejected and may not be subsequently made responsive by correction or withdrawal of non-conforming deviation or reservation.

5. The appellant claimed that the estimated cost of the work is Rs.86.51 lakh and the appellant offered his bid at Rs.77,85,900/- which is exactly 10% below the estimated cost of the work. However, the respondent No.3 offered his bid at Rs.77,85,899.69 which is beyond 10% below the estimated cost of work and is in violation of Clause 29(IV) of the Bid Document but despite the said fact the respondent Department declared the Financial Bid of the respondent No.3 as responsive though it was supposed to be rejected as per Clause 29(IV) of the Bid document.

6. The respondent Department had taken a stand before the learned Single Judge that though the Financial Bid offered by the respondent No.3 was lower by 31 paise, which is 10% below the estimated cost of the work, however, the Tender Committee, relying on the Notification dated 21.09.2004 issued by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, had applied the formula of rounding off of the bid price to the nearest rupee value and after applying the said formula, declared the Financial Bid of the respondent No.3 as responsive.

7. It was also contended before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the respondent Department that the bid capacity of the respondent No.3 is significantly better than the bid capacity of the appellant and therefore, the respondent No.3 is declared as L-1 bidder.

8. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival contentions and also taking into consideration the Notification dated 21.09.2004 issued by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department; Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 01.01.1991, has come to the conclusion that the decision of the Tender Committee as well as the Departmental authorities is not liable to be interfered with.

9. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of Section 170 of the CGST Act, while highlighting that in the said Act also, all tax, interest, penalty, refund or other amounts owed are required to be rounded off to the nearest rupee.

10. The learned Single Judge has finally observed that the difference of 31 paise in a contract matter involving Rs.77,85,900/- is hyper technical, as 31 paise does not actually make any real difference.

11. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the Notification dated 21.09.2004, relied upon by the respondent Department, introducing the formula of round