The Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with precise requirements of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)—such as itemized quotation of cost components—renders a bid invalid, even if the deviation appears minor or all other conditions are satisfied. The Court restated the principle that tender authorities and bidders are strictly bound by the terms of the tender and that judicial review can quash tender outcomes for violations of such terms. This judgment upholds existing precedent and will serve as binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court for challenges to government tenders in the public procurement sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/16009/2024 of A-ONE ENTERPRISE AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0304852024 |
| Date of Registration | 20-06-2024 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative Law; Public Procurement and Tender Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that strict adherence to the terms and conditions of a tender is mandatory for both authorities and bidders. Any failure, including not quoting separate cost components where mandated, vitiates the tender process for that bid. Judicial review is warranted where there is a clear violation of tender terms and/or judicial direction, even in matters traditionally left to executive discretion, such as selection of successful bidders. While the executive is generally granted deference in evaluation of bids, where an authority overlooks clear non-compliance (as in the failure to quote cooking gas cost separately under Clause 26), the resultant bid must be invalidated regardless of subsequent lottery selection or identical total rates. The maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard but it is the law) applies to ensure strict compliance and maintain rule of law in public contracts. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The ESI Hospital, Manicktala, floated an e-tender for supply of diets to indoor patients. Petitioners and several others participated. Multiple rounds of litigation occurred due to technical bid rejections and previous process irregularities. Eventually, 10 bidders’ financial bids were opened, all quoting identical rates (mandated by price controls on raw material and gas). The Tender Committee selected the successful bidder (respondent no. 6) by draw of lots but overlooked that this bidder had failed to quote the cooking gas cost separately, as required by Clause 26. The petitioners challenged this, seeking strict compliance with the NIT and relevant judicial orders. The Court found in their favour, invalidating the selection and directing a fresh evaluation excluding the non-compliant bid. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tendering authorities within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court in public procurement and tender matters |
| Follows | WPA 26204/2023 (Calcutta HC), MAT 2417/2023 (Calcutta HC), WPA 13777/2024 (Calcutta HC) |
| Distinguishes |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that strict compliance with all material tender conditions is mandatory; even “minor” deviations—such as failure to quote cost components separately—vitiate a bid.
- Judicial review is available where tender authorities violate explicit tender clauses or clear court directions, regardless of whether all bidders are “treated equally.”
- A lottery (draw of lots) to break a tie cannot substitute for prior compliance with essential NIT terms.
- The maxim “dura lex sed lex” invoked: rule of law requires enforcement of even seemingly harsh or technical legal requirements in public contracts.
- This judgment can be cited to challenge and quash tender awards where there is demonstrable non-compliance with critical NIT terms—especially in government procurement matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged the general legal principle that the State enjoys wide latitude in setting and interpreting tender terms, and that judicial review in procurement matters is limited, citing Supreme Court authorities (Michigan Rubber, Agmatel India, Silppi Constructions).
- However, the Court underscored that both the State (when tendering) and bidders are strictly bound by the terms and conditions of the tender documents. Any material deviation, especially where specified by the NIT itself as ground for rejection, must be enforced to maintain integrity in public procurement.
- The Court analyzed the relevant NIT clauses (notably Clauses 5, 26, 39, and 42), and found that the successful bidder (respondent no. 6) did not quote the cost of cooking gas separately as required by Clause 26.
- Despite tender authorities and respondent’s arguments regarding uniform treatment and expert discretion, the Court found the technical non-compliance legally fatal, especially given earlier High Court directions mandating compliance with exact requirements.
- The maxim “dura lex sed lex” was cited: the rule of law demands enforcement even of harsh or technical legal provisions.
- Cited Supreme Court judgments, while of great authority, were distinguished on facts, as those cases did not involve explicit and material breach of tender conditions and explicit court orders.
- The Court set aside both the selection of respondent no. 6 and the corresponding work order, directing a fresh evaluation excluding the non-compliant bid, and reasserting that compliance with earlier judicial orders and NIT conditions is non-negotiable.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tender authorities ignored Clause 39 of NIT, which required calculation of overall financial implication before any tie-breaking draw of lots.
- The successful bidder failed to quote rates (specifically cooking gas) separately as required by Clause 26—making bid liable to rejection.
- Non-compliance with tender terms and the Court’s previous directions vitiates the entire selection process.
- Requested annulment of work order and strict adherence to all NIT clauses.
Respondent No. 6
- Submitted that interpretation of tender terms lies within the exclusive domain of the Tender Selection Committee.
- Courts should not act as appellate authorities in technical tender matters unless there is proven mala fide, arbitrariness, or illegality.
- Cited Supreme Court judgments (Michigan Rubber, Agmatel, Silppi Constructions) supporting limited judicial interference.
- Maintained that authorities had already complied with NIT and Court orders, and resorted to a draw of lots only because all bidders quoted the same rate.
- Alleged that the petitioner’s objections were motivated by disappointment at not being selected, not by objective concerns.
State (Respondents 1–5)
- Supported the position that tender evaluation was done per the applicable rules, and that a draw of lots was justified in the circumstances.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from an e-tender process floated by ESI Hospital, Manicktala for supplying cooked diets to indoor patients for two years. The petitioner and several others participated in the process. After multiple rounds of litigation concerning technical bid rejections and process irregularities, 10 bidders’ financial bids were opened, all quoting identical rates due in part to fixed input costs. The authorities determined the successful bidder by a draw of lots, resulting in respondent no. 6 being awarded the work order. However, the petitioner challenged this on the basis that respondent no. 6 failed to quote the cost of cooking gas separately, as explicitly required by Clause 26 of the NIT, and that the selection bypassed required calculations under Clause 39. The petitioners sought annulment of the work order and a direction for fresh evaluation strictly in terms of all NIT clauses and prior High Court orders.
Statutory Analysis
- Clause 26 of NIT: Mandated each bidder to indicate separately the cost of cooking gas, service charges, and raw materials for all diet categories. Non-compliance renders the bid liable for rejection.
- Clause 39 of NIT: Requires that rates be calculated based on the overall monthly financial implication for the supply to all diet categories, and only in case of a tie, a draw of lots may be conducted under supervision.
- West Bengal Financial Rules—Clause 177(c)(vii): Mandates acceptance of the lowest tender as a rule.
- Judicial Orders: Prior High Court orders (WPA 26204/2023, MAT 2417/2023, WPA 13777/2024) required strict compliance with all relevant NIT clauses and financial rules before final selection.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on strict compliance with tender terms and judicial review in procurement matters is affirmed.