Facts Of The Case:
The State of West Bengal invited bids for a Road User Fee collection contract. Mandeepa Enterprises (Respondent No. 1) participated and was found technically qualified. Upon opening the financial bids, Prakash Asphaltings (the Appellant) was declared the highest bidder (H1) at ₹91.19 crores for the 1095-day contract, while Mandeepa was the lowest (H4) at approximately ₹9.73 lakhs. After this result was declared, Mandeepa claimed it had inadvertently quoted a per-day rate and requested the authority to treat its bid as ₹106.54 crores for the entire period. The tendering authority rejected this request as a post-tender modification, which was impermissible under the tender conditions. Mandeepa filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. However, a Division Bench allowed Mandeepa’s appeal, directing the authority to reevaluate its bid at the higher, recalculated amount. The Supreme Court was then approached by Prakash Asphaltings, the original H1 bidder, challenging the Division Bench’s order.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the filing of a writ petition (WPA No. 29001 of 2023) by Mandeepa Enterprises before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the tendering authority’s refusal to correct its financial bid. A Single Judge dismissed this petition, upholding the sanctity of the tender process. Mandeepa Enterprises then filed an intra-court appeal (MAT No. 93 of 2024) before a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and directed the authorities to reevaluate Mandeepa’s bid. Aggrieved by this decision, Prakash Asphaltings, the successful H1 bidder, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and ultimately set aside the Division Bench’s judgment, restoring the order of the Single Judge.
READ ALSO:Coal India’s 20% Price Hike for Select Industries Upheld by Supreme Court
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations, fundamentally disagreeing with the High Court’s Division Bench. It held that the power to seek clarification under the tender conditions (Clause 5B(v)) could not be stretched to permit a post-tender rectification of the financial bid, as this was expressly prohibited by another clause (4(g)) that forbade any change to the BOQ template. The Court observed that Mandeepa’s error was a result of its own casualness and not inadvertent, and allowing such corrections would unsettle the entire tender process and impeach its sanctity. It emphasized that judicial review in tender matters must be exercised with restraint and should not interfere unless there is mala fide, arbitrariness, or perversity. The Court also noted that the appellant, being the H1 bidder, was a necessary party to the High Court proceedings, and the failure to implead it vitiated the Division Bench’s order on the grounds of natural justice.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court’s Division Bench. It held that the post-tender rectification of Mandeepa Enterprises’ financial bid was impermissible as it violated the specific tender conditions that prohibited any change to the Bid’s template. The Court restored the order of the Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the sanctity and finality of the tender process. Consequently, the respondent authorities were directed to proceed with and finalize the award of the contract in terms of the original notice inviting tender, which had declared Prakash Asphaltings as the highest (H1) bidder.
Download The Judgement Here