Tender – Electronic bid – A notice inviting electronic bid was issued for engaging complete Road User Fee (RUF) collection operator for RUF collection from commercial vehicles (nonpassenger) at designated locations – The contract period was for 1095 days – On opening of financial bids, it was found that appellant-Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited was the highest bidder with the quoted amount of Rs. 91,19,00,000/- (for 1095 days) and respondent no. 1 was the lowest bidder (H4) at the offered amount of Rs. 9,72,999/- – Respondent no. 1 made a request to respondent no. 4 to change the rate offered by it by treating the same as per day offer and on that basis, figure would stand at Rs. 106,54,33,905/- – Prayer was rejected – Writ petition – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition – However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal by directing respondent nos. 2 to 4 to evaluate the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) rate of respondent no. 1 by treating Rs. 106,54,33,905/- as the amount for the entire contractual period of 1095 days instead of Rs. 9,72,999/- which was treated to be a per day figure – Correctness:
Held: Clause 4 of the notice inviting electronic bid lays down the eligibility criteria for participation in bid – Clause 4(g) specifically says that any change in the template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances – 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 – 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 view of this Court is fortified by the item rate BOQ of respondent no. 1 entered into figure for 1095 days – Therefore, though the contention of respondent no. 1 is that it had made an inadvertent mistake in quoting the BOQ rate of per day figure instead of the total contract period of 1095 days, a closer scrutiny would however belie such contention – Allowing respondent no. 1 to rectify such mistakes after finalization of the financial bid would be highly improper as it would have the effect of unsettling the entire tender process – The Division Bench of the High Court clearly fell in error in directing respondent nos. 2 to 4 to allow rectification of the financial bid of respondent No. 1 by treating the amount offered by it as the per day figure and on that basis to compute the total amount for the entire contractual period of 1095 days – Also, non-impleadment and consequential non-hearing of the appellant by the High Court, has vitiated the impugned judgment and order – Thus, impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and quashed. [Paras 29-32, 43, 45]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.