Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011418-011418 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 22545/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative law / Contract law (Public procurement) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that Clause 4(g) of the tender—which flatly prohibits any change in the BOQ template—cannot be overridden by the general power in Clause 5B(v) to seek clarifications on submitted documents. Financial bids must stand as submitted at opening, and price-bid corrections post-opening are impermissible. Moreover, a writ court entertaining a challenge to tender evaluation must implead all materially affected bidders to satisfy principles of natural justice. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court applied established tests limiting judicial interference in tenders to mala fides, perversity or arbitrariness (Jagdish Mandal) and insisted on construing tender documents strictly (Afcons). It refused to stretch a clarification clause (5B(v)) to permit post-opening price correction where a specific prohibition (4(g)) existed. It also reaffirmed natural justice requirements in procurement disputes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts when reviewing tender challenges. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals in procurement disputes. |
| Overrules | Calcutta High Court Division Bench (MAT No. 93 of 2024, order dated 23.02.2024). |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Tender-specific prohibitions (Clause 4(g)) against BOQ changes cannot be overridden by general clarification powers (Clause 5B(v)).
- Clause 5B(v) is limited to documentary clarifications, not price-bid corrections after opening.
- Post-opening corrigenda of financial bids are impermissible even if they would increase revenue.
- Courts reviewing tenders must implead all materially affected bidders to satisfy natural justice.
- Sanctity of tender conditions and finality of bids outweigh narrow considerations of public revenue gain.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Textual hierarchy of clauses: Clause 4(g) explicitly bars any change to the BOQ template, whereas Clause 5B(v) empowers clarifications on uploaded documents only.
- BOQ entries self-evident: The bid form required rate for 1,095 days; Mandeepa’s own figures confirmed it knew this requirement.
- No inadvertence exception: Unilateral mistakes are not corrigible post-opening when contrary to tender terms (Patel Engg).
- Limited scope of judicial review: Absent mala fides or irrationality, courts should not upset competitive bidding finality (Jagdish Mandal, Afcons).
- Natural justice: A writ court cannot grant relief that materially affects other bidders without hearing them (Afcons, Johra).
- Result: High Court order allowing price-bid correction and re-evaluation set aside; tender process to proceed per original terms.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways)
- Mandeepa’s post-opening request upset the entire tender process and violated Clause 4(g).
- Clause 5B(v) does not authorize price corrections, only document clarifications.
- Division Bench’s broad reading of Clause 5B(v) is contrary to tender sanctity and precedent.
- Non-impleadment of H1 bidder violated natural justice and fairness.
Respondent No. 1 (Mandeepa Enterprises)
- Quoted rate was bona fide per-day figure by inadvertence; correction benefits public exchequer.
- Clause 5B(v) empowers any bid clarification, including price errors.
- Non-joinder of H1 bidder is not fatal; relief sought only against State authority refusal.
- Courts should favour rectification of obvious errors over forfeiture of public revenue.
Respondent Nos. 2–4 (State of West Bengal & Officials)
- BOQ template unambiguously required rate for full contract period; no ground for correction.
- Allowing rectification post-opening would compromise fairness and transparency.
- Non-impleadment of affected bidders vitiated the writ process.
- Tender interference by writ court is impermissible absent perversity or mala fides.
Factual Background
- The State floated an e-tender (17.10.2023) for a 1,095-day Road User Fee collection contract.
- Bids were submitted online with a strict BOQ template requiring rates quoted for the entire period (Clause 4(g)).
- Four bidders (including the appellant and Mandeepa) qualified technically; financial bids were opened on 08.12.2023.
- Appellant was highest (H1) at ₹91.19 crore; Mandeepa lowest (H4) at ₹9,72,999.
- Mandeepa sought post-opening correction to treat its figure as daily rate and compute ₹106.54 crore; request denied.
Statutory Analysis
- Tender NIT Clause 3: Requires rates quoted in BOQ both in words and figures; discrepancies resolved in favour of words.
- Clause 4(g): “Any change in template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances.”
- Clause 5 (Instructions to Bidders): Emphasizes neat, readable uploads; failure leads to bid cancellation.
- Clause 5B(v): Empowers seeking clarifications/additional documents on already uploaded submissions; non-compliance triggers rejection.
- Interplay: Document clarification clause cannot override express prohibition on price-bid modifications.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissent; both Justices Misra and Bhuyan concurred in full.
Procedural Innovations
- Judicial-review proceedings challenging tender awards must implead all materially affected bidders as parties to ensure natural justice.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns Division Bench’s broad use of clarification power for price bids.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strict construction of tender clauses (Patel Engg, Afcons).
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Conflicts with Calcutta High Court order dated 23.02.2024.