A glaring clerical error in a tender bid should not be exploited by the authority to enforce an unrealistic price, provided the mistake is obvious, though the bidder may be penalized with costs for the resulting administrative disruption.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

[1] The committing of a mistake, which can only be termed as a silly mistake, has resulted in the filing of this writ petition.

[2] The petitioner, while making a bid in response to a tender for supply of 11 KV AL 59 ACS Rabbit Covered Conductor, quoted a price of Rs.8,890/- in the system, though it was actually intended to be Rs.88,900/-. The quoting of this figure was obviously a glaring error inasmuch as one number was omitted.

[3] It is the admitted case of both the parties that in respect of similar tenders, rates in the range Rs.90,000/- are been regularly quoted. In light of this admitted position, it is clear that the quoting of the rate of Rs.8,890/- was only a freak occurrence.

[4] Notwithstanding the fact that this was a mistake, the respondent authorities have proceeded to act upon the same and have awarded the contract at the rate of Rs. 8.890/-. As per the procurement policy, 10% of the quoted items have been awarded in favor of the petitioner.

[5] The petitioner is therefore before this Court, and it is sought to be contended that the moment this mistake was realized, the petitioner in fact withdrew this bid, and since the withdrawal was made before the acceptance of the bid, the award of the contract was incorrect.

[6] Be that as it may, after the matter was argued for some time, it was our view that the matter could be resolved by calling upon the petitioner to supply the products at the rate that he intended to quote, i.e., Rs.88,900/-, and we put it across to the respondent that they should accept the same and close the controversy.

[7] Today, a submission is made that the parties would abide by the decision of this Court in this matter.

[8] In light of the fact that it cannot be seriously disputed that a mistake, which has large ramifications, was inadvertently committed, we are of the view that the issue can be put to an end by directing the petitioner to stand by its commitment of supplying the required product at the rate of Rs.88,900/-. This would ensure that the petitioner’s bid, as intended, would be acted upon, and the respondent would not take advantage of the mistake committed by the petitioner.

[9] However, at the same time, we would also wish to impose costs on the petitioner since this mistake of his part has resulted in a cascading effect on the entire tender process.

[10] We may also state that in the case of Omsairam Steels & Alloys Private Limited versus Director of Mines and Geology, BBSR and another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 697, a mistake of this nature and the action of the respondents in acting upon such an error was held to be incorrect by the Apex Court.

[11] As a result, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to issue a modified purchase order, indicating that the respondents shall supply the items at Rs. 88,900/-. The respondent shall ignore the mistake of the petitioner in quoting Rs.8,890/- and proceed to treat the bid of the petitioner as a bid with a quote for Rs.88,900/-.

[12] As regards the quantum of costs, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the respondent within a week and the modified order shall be thereafter issued to the petitioner.

[13] In view of this order, the time for processing the tender shall stand extended by a further period of four weeks from today.

[14] it is hereby clarified that this order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the same shall not be treated as precedent.