Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court in a recent case ruled that once financial bids of the tender are opened, it would not be permissible to rectify the bids. Otherwise, the sanctity of the tendering process would be compromised. The Court reiterated that the mere possibility of accrual of more money would not be a ground to rectify the bid once opened.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Calcutta High Court Division Bench's decision that had allowed Respondent No.1 to amend its financial bid after the bids were opened. The High Court had assumed the bidder might have mistakenly quoted a per-day rate instead of the total for 1095 days. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this reasoning, stressing that when the tender rules impose an absolute bar on altering bids after opening, any such rectification is impermissible.

The dispute arose from a tender for Road User Fee (RUF) collection at Dankuni–Chandannagar in West Bengal, which required bidders to quote the total amount for 1095 days in a prescribed Bill of Quantity (BOQ) template. Respondent No.1, Mandeepa Enterprises, entered ₹9,72,999 in both figures and words. After the financial bids were opened, it claimed this was a per-day rate and sought recalculation of the total contract value at ₹106.54 crore, which would have made it the highest bidder so that it could fetch more money for the state.

The tendering authority rejected this plea, a decision later upheld by the High Court's Single Judge. However, the Division Bench allowed rectification, reasoning that Clause 5B(v) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) empowered the authority to seek clarifications.

Aggrieved by the Division Bench's ruling, the highest bidder (H1) moved the Supreme Court, arguing that his bid of ₹91.19 crore for 1095 days had been disregarded while the High Court wrongly permitted Respondent No.1 to rectify its bid after the financial bids were opened—an action expressly barred under the NIT rules.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan held that a bidder cannot amend or reinterpret its price bid after financial bids are opened.

“Division Bench of the High Court has interpreted this clause in a broad way to include rectification of bona fide mistakes in quoting BOQ rates by the bidders. In our view, this will be stretching things a bit too far. This provision is meant to empower the notice inviting authority to seek clarification or further information regarding any document filed by a bidder. This cannot be interpreted so broadly as to include rectification of the BOQ rates which is governed by Clause 4(g) of the notice inviting electronic bid putting a complete embargo to any change in the template of BOQ; the prohibition is specific: change in the template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances.”, the court observed.

The Court added that though accrual of more revenue of public exchequer is an important aspect for public interest, it should not be forgotten that sanctity of the tendering process should be maintained at all cost.

“Public tenders are the cornerstone of governmental procurement processes, being competitive and ensuring fairness and transparency in the allocation of public resources. Public tenders are designed to provide a level playing field for all potential bidders, fostering an environment where competition thrives. The integrity of this process ensures that public projects and resources are delivered efficiently and effectively, benefiting the society at large. Therefore, sanctity of public tenders and contract is a fundamental principle that underpins the stability and predictability of legal and commercial relationships. Infact this Court put in a word of caution that considerations of public interest should not be narrowly confined to financial aspect only.”, the court said.

“The expression 'public interest' in the arena of commercial transactions cannot and should not be confined to any straight jacket definition. While benefit or accrual of more revenue to the public exchequer is certainly an important aspect, equally important, if not more, is adherence to the rules and conditions of tender; sanctity of the tender process being paramount and should be maintained at all cost.”, the court added.

Reference was made to the recent decision in M/s. ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited v. Union of India (2025) INSC 215, Subodh Kumar Singh Rathore Vs. Chief Executive Officer etc.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the tendering authorities were directed to proceed with and finalise the award of contract in terms of the notice inviting electronic bid dated 17.10.2023 i.e., the tender terms.

Cause Title: PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS MANDEEPA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Monish Panda, Adv. Mr. Anmol Jassal, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Bir Singh, Adv. Ms. Amrita Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Soan, AOR Mr. Akshay Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Ms. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Ayush Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Tuhin, AOR Ms. Niyati Pathak, Adv. (for intervenor) Mr. Tuhin, AOR