Tender conditions prohibiting the modification or withdrawal of bids after submission are strictly binding. A unilateral clerical error by a bidder does not entitle them to equitable relief or the return of earnest money if such relief would undermine the integrity of the public procurement process.

JUDGMENT

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, is for setting aside of the decision dated April 22, 2026 (Annexure P-8) and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the withdrawal of the petitioner’s price bid dated February 23, 2026 (Annexure P-4). Furthermore, the petitioner company has prayed for release of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amount of Rs. 13,67,780/- along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from April 10, 2026 till the date of actual payment.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i) The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of providing logistics and transportation to various organisations.

ii) The respondent No.1- Food Corporation of India (FCI) issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated February 02, 2026 for appointment of Handling and Transport Contractor (HTC) for a period of two years at FCI, Moonak Centre.

iii) The petitioner participated in the bidding process for Tender No.GEM/2026/B/7177761 as a general bidder. The technical evaluation was done on March 27, 2026 whereby the petitioner’s bid was found to be technically responsive.

iv) On March 30, 2026, the financial bids were opened and the petitioner was declared to be the top bidder (L-1) by calculating the percentage offered vis-à-vis the base value. The base value for the tender was fixed at Rs.3,37,15,000/- and the tenderer was required to quote in its financial bid the offered percentage qua the base value, in the GEM portal of the respondents.

v) The petitioner gave a financial bid of the amount of Rs.4,34,92,350/- i.e. 1.29 times of the base value after considering the same to be 1. It is the petitioner’s case that it intended to give a financial bid of 2.29 times considering the base value as 1. However, due to an inadvertent mistake by a Clerk working at the petitioner company, the financial bid was offered at 1.29 times the base value instead of 2.29 times the base value.

vi) After opening of the financial bids on March 30, 2026, the FCI accepted the financial bid of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to withdraw its bid and submitted a representation to that effect on April 10, 2026.

vii) The respondents decided the representation of the petitioner vide impugned order/decision dated April 22, 2026 and the competent authority refused to alter the bid made by the petitioner in GEM portal. While accepting the bid of the petitioner company for a period of two years, it intimated to the petitioner that the financial bid offered by the petitioner could not be corrected or altered after submission of the same, as per the accepted terms and conditions of the tender.

viii) Challenging the aforesaid order/decision dated April 22, 2026 the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Goel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the mistake in the financial bid was completely inadvertent. Instead of taking the base value at Rs.3,37,15,000/- and adding 1.29 times to the base value to make the bid 2.29 times of the base value (1.29+1=2.29), one Narinder Sharma, an employee of the petitioner company, multiplied 1.29 times to the base value i.e 1.29 x 1=1.29. Therefore, the petitioner inadvertently submitted a financial bid of 1.29 times of the base value instead of 2.29 times of the base value. The