Case Note & Summary
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of India arose from a judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 of a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in MAT No. 93 of 2024, which had allowed an intra-court appeal filed by respondent No.1 against the dismissal of its writ petition by a learned Single Judge. The dispute related to a tender process for road user fee collection from commercial vehicles at a fee plaza on SH 13 in Hooghly district, West Bengal. The appellant, Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited, was the highest bidder (H1), while respondent No.1 Mandeepa Enterprises was the lowest bidder (H4). The case concerned whether an inadvertent error in quoting amount in the financial bid could be rectified after opening of bids when tender conditions prohibited any change in the BOQ template. The Supreme Court heard the appeal; the available judgment excerpt does not include the final holding. The Superintending Engineer and Project Director issued notice inviting electronic bid No. 7 of 2023-24 dated 17.10.2023 for engaging a road user fee collection operator. The contract period was 1095 days. Clause 3 of the notice specified that rates must be quoted both in words and figures in BOQ format, and in case of discrepancy, words prevail. Clause 4(g) categorically provided that any change in the template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances. Seven bidders participated; after technical evaluation on 06.12.2023, only four were qualified, including appellant and respondent No.1. Financial bids were opened on 08.12.2023, and appellant was H1 with Rs. 91,19,00,000, while respondent No.1 was H4 with Rs. 9,72,999. Respondent No.1 claimed that it had mistakenly quoted per day amount instead of total amount for 1095 days; if multiplied, its offer would be Rs. 106,54,33,905. It sought correction by email dated 13.12.2023, but respondent No.4 rejected on 20.12.2023 stating that such correction would impeach sanctity of tender process. Respondent No.1 then filed writ petition WPA No. 29001 of 2023 seeking mandamus to allow rectification and certiorari to quash rejection. A learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 03.01.2024, finding no scope for interference. On appeal, the Division Bench held the error was inadvertent, allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge order, and directed evaluation treating the figure as per day amount with opportunity to other bidders to match the price. The core legal issue was whether an inadvertent error in financial bid quotation could be rectified after opening when tender conditions expressly barred modification of BOQ template; and whether judicial review could permit such rectification contrary to the tender terms. Respondent No.1 contended the mistake was bona fide and inadvertent, promptly brought to notice, and the tendering authority should consider higher revenue. The State and tendering authority argued that request for correction was not entertainable as it would undermine sanctity of tender process. The High Court Division Bench observed that error was inadvertent; instead of quoting price for entire 1095 days, respondent No.1 had uploaded per day amount of Rs. 9,72,999. It directed evaluation treating that as per day amount and computing total, with opportunity to other bidders to match. However, the tender conditions expressly prohibited any change in BOQ template under any circumstances. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged this approach. The available excerpt does not include the Supreme Court's reasoning on the merits or its final order.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Modification of BOQ Template - Clause 4(g) of Notice Inviting Electronic Bid and Clause 5B(v) of Instructions to Bidders - Tender Conditions - The tender conditions expressly provided that any change in template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances, and that only clarifications on already submitted documents could be sought. Respondent No.1 uploaded per day amount instead of total contract amount, and sought correction after opening, which was rejected as it would impeach sanctity of tender process. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide validity of rectification under these conditions (Paras 7-11, 15-17). B) Judicial Review - Writ Petition in Tender Matters - Article 226 Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding no scope for interference; Division Bench allowed intra-court appeal finding error inadvertent. The Supreme Court examined whether judicial review could permit bid rectification contrary to tender terms (Paras 2-4, 18). C) Writ Remedies - Mandamus and Certiorari - Availability to Direct Amendment of Financial Bid - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The prayer sought mandamus to allow rectification and certiorari to quash rejection. The court considered whether such relief could be granted in a tender dispute where bid had been opened and tender conditions prohibited modification (Para 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an inadvertent error in quoting amount in financial bid can be rectified after opening of bids when tender conditions expressly prohibit any change in BOQ template; whether Division Bench was justified in directing evaluation treating quoted amount as per day amount.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided judgment excerpt.
Law Points
- Tender conditions must be strictly construed
- no change in BOQ template accepted under any circumstances
- financial bid once submitted cannot be modified after opening
- judicial review in tender matters limited
- prayer for rectification after opening threatens sanctity of tender
- evaluation must follow tender terms
- quoted amount forms basis for H1 determination
- inadvertent error not automatically rectifiable
