# Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1108
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11418 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prakash-asphaltings-and-toll-highways-india-limited-v-mandeepa-enterprises-and-38728
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court 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.
Headnotes†
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
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
795
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
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]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,898 of 65,822. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39898 for what follows._

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 794 : 2025 INSC 1108
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited
v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 11418 of 2025)
12 September 2025
[Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court 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.
Headnotes†
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
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
795
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
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]
Case Law Cited
West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Company
Limited [2001] 1 SCR 352 : (2001) 2 SCC 451; Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 606 : (2007) 14 SCC 517;
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation
Limited [2016] 3 SCR 551 : (2016) 16 SCC 818; CIDCO v. Shishir
Realty Private Limited [2021] 13 SCR 190 : (2012) 16 SCC 527 -
relied on.
Johra v. State of Haryana [2018] 14 SCR 970 : (2019) 2 SCC 324;
M/s. ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited v. Union of India, 2025
796
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
INSC 215; [2025] 3 SCR 128;Subodh Kumar Singh Rathore v.
Chief Executive Officer [2024] 7 SCR 532 : 2024 SCC Online
SC 1682 - referred to.
Supreme Infrastructure India Limited v. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited,
2012 SCC Online Delhi 616 - referred to.
List of Keywords
Tender; Electronic bid; Road User Fee (RUF); Highest bidder;
Lowest bidder; Bill of Quantity (BOQ); Rectification of bona fide
mistakes; Non-impleadment; Non-hearing of party.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11418
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2024 of the High Court
at Calcutta in MAT No. 93 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Monish Panda, Anmol Jassal, Jatinder Bir
Singh, Ms. Amrita Singh, Krishna Kumar Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Anurag Soan, Akshay Saxena, Ritu Raj, Ms. Kanika, Ayush Mishra,
Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, Tuhin, Ms. Niyati Pathak, Tuhin.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
23.02.2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta
(High Court) in MAT No. 93 of 2024.
2.
Be it stated that MAT No. 93 of 2024 was filed by the respondent
No. 1 as an intra-court appeal against the final order dated 03.01.2024
passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the
writ petition, WPA No. 29001 of 2023, filed by respondent No. 1.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
797
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
3.
Respondent No. 1 had filed the aforesaid writ petition assailing the
action of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (State of West Bengal and its
officials) refusing to treat respondent No. 1 as the highest bidder
by permitting it to rectify its financial bid after the bidding process
was over. After observing that there was no scope for interference,
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
4.
Aggrieved by such dismissal, respondent No. 1 preferred an intracourt appeal which was registered as MAT No. 93 of 2024. According
to the Division Bench, the error in quoting the figure by respondent
No. 1 was inadvertent; instead of quoting the price for the entire
contract period of 1095 days, respondent No. 1 had uploaded per
day amount of the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) of Rs. 9,72,999.00. Division
Bench further observed that respondent No. 1 had promptly sought
for correction of the error immediately after reopening of the price
bids. Therefore, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal vide the
judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 by setting aside the order of
the learned Single Judge, further directing respondent Nos. 2, 3
and 4 to evaluate the BOQ rate of respondent No. 1 by treating the
amount offered by respondent No. 1 as the per day amount and
then on that basis to compute the total amount for the entire contract
period of 1095 days. However, the Division Bench was of the view
that an opportunity should be granted by the tendering authority to
the other bidders as well to match the price of respondent No. 1 and
thereafter to take a final decision with regard to the award of contract.
5.
It is this judgment and order which is under impugnment in the
present proceeding.
6.
At the outset, relevant facts may be noted.
7.
A notice inviting electronic bid No. 7 of 2023-24 dated 17.10.2023
was issued by the Superintending Engineer and Project Director,
Project Implementation Unit - I, Public Works (Roads) Directorate,
Government of West Bengal for engaging complete Road User Fee
(RUF) collection operator for RUF collection from commercial vehicles
(non-passenger) at designated locations on few roads in the State of
West Bengal. In this case, we are concerned with the following work:
RUF Collection with HNETC System Integration and
Transaction Acquiring services at Fee collection plaza
under NETC programme through NPCI approved acquirer
bank including engagement of required man power for
798
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
operation of Road User Fee collection plaza for Dankuni
Chandannagar Mogra in Hooghly district SH 13.
8.
The contract period is for 1095 days. While the annual potential
collection was pegged at Rs. 21.60 crores, the earnest money deposit/
bid security was fixed at Rs. 25,00,000.00. As per Clause 2 of the
notice inviting electronic bid, there would be two bids: technical bid and
financial bid, both of which would have to be submitted concurrently
duly digitally signed in the website of the West Bengal Government.
Clause 3 mentioned that the rates should be quoted both in words
and in figures in specific format i.e. BOQ. In case of any discrepancy
between words and figures, the rate quoted in words would be treated
as the actual rate offered. After bidding, the selected bidder will be
the H1 bidder who will offer the highest remittance for the contract
period and will make necessary agreement with the condition that
the accepted bid amount over the stipulated period will have to be
deposited in advance as per payment schedule to the government
account in lieu of RUF collection right.
9.
Clause 4 lays down the eligibility criteria for participation in the Bid.
Clause 4(g) is very specific. It says that any change in the template
of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances. Clause 4(g)
reads thus:
Any change in template of BOQ will not be accepted under
any circumstances.
10. The date and time schedule of the tender process as provided in
Clause 9 was as follows:
9.
Date & Time Schedule:
Particulars
Date & Time
1. Date of Publishing NIT
& Tender Documents
17/10/2023
2. Document Sale/
Download Start Date
18/10/2023 from 10.00 a.m.
3. Pre Bid Meeting with
the intending bidders
03/11/2023 at 1.00 p.m.
at the Conference Hall
of PWD at Nabanna, 8th
Floor, 325, Sarat Chatterjee
Road.,Howrah- 711102.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
799
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
4. Bid Submission/
Upload Start Date
08/11/2023 from 3.00 p.m.
5. Bid Submission/
Upload End Date
22/11/2023 upto 3.00 p.m.
6. Date of opening of
Technical Proposals
24/11/2023 at 3.00 p.m.
7. Date of opening
of Financial Bid/
Proposals
To be notified at the time of
publishing List of Technically
Qualified Bidders in the web
portal only.
11. Instructions to Bidders is part of the notice inviting electronic bid.
Clause 5 thereof deals with submission of bids. It clarified that the
notice inviting bid was of two bid system: (i) technical and (ii) financial,
both to be submitted concurrently in the portal. Bidders who would
be technically pre-qualified in respect of technical and financial
eligibility/capability criteria would only be permitted to participate in
the financial bidding. Bidders were required to submit online in two
folders for each work, one being technical proposal and the other
being financial proposal. It was clarified that at the time of uploading
bid, care should be taken so that during evaluation, all the documents
required to be submitted by the bidders are found in a neat, clear and
in a readable format, otherwise the bid might be treated as cancelled.
The instructions to bidders also clarifies that technical proposals will
be opened by the Bid Inviting Authority (BIA) or by the Bid Evaluation
Committee, and thereafter to upload the summary list of technically
qualified bidders. Heading of sub-clause B is bid evaluation. As
per sub-clause B(v), in the course of evaluation, the notice inviting
authority may seek clarification/information or additional supporting
documents or original hard copies of documents already submitted
and if these are not produced by the bidders within the stipulated
time frame, their proposals will be liable for rejection. Clause 5B (v)
of the Instruction to Bidders is as follows:
v. While evaluation the Notice Inviting Authority may
summon of the bids and seek clarification/information or
additional supporting documents or original hard copies
against any of the documents only, which are already
submitted/uploaded to the web portal and if these are not
800
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
produced by the intending Bidders within the stipulated
time frame, their proposals will be liable for rejection.
12. The following seven bidders had participated in the present tender
process. These seven bidders are as follows:
1.
Ainul Hoque
2.
SK Nasir.
3.
Mandeepa Enterprises
4.
RMN Infrastructures Limited.
5.
M/S GVR Infra Projects Limited.
6.
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways India Ltd
7.
Eagle Infra India Ltd.
13. Tender evaluation was carried out by a five-member screening
committee for bid evaluation on 06.12.2023 which was constituted
vide G.O. No. 3410-PW/O/E-1/2M-17/2017 dated 18.09.2017. After
evaluation of the technical bids by aforesaid committee, it was found
that out of the aforesaid total seven bidders, only four numbers of
bidders were found to be technically qualified. Three bidders were
found to be non eligible and declared as disqualified. The short listed
four bidders are as follows:
(i)
Ainul Hoque
(ii)
Mandeepa Enterprises
(iii) Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited
(iv) Eagle Infra India Limited
It was mentioned that financial bids would be opened on 08.12.2023
at 06:30 pm.
14. Accordingly, forty eight hours after declaration of technical evaluation,
financial bids of the four technically qualified bidders were opened
electronically as per the e-tender mechanism. On such opening, it
was found that the appellant Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways
(India) Limited was the highest bidder with the quoted amount
of Rs. 91,19,00,000.00 (for 1095 days). It was also found that
respondent No. 1 was the lowest bidder (H4) at the offered amount
of Rs. 9,72,999.00. Details of financial bid evaluation are as under:
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
801
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
BOQ Summary Details
Tender Title: WBPWD/PW(R)/SEPD/PIU-I/NIB-07 OF
2023-24, SI-3
TENDER ID: 2023_WBPWD_595358_3
Sheet
Name
SI.
No.
Bidder Name
Amount
Bid
Rank
BoQ1
1
Prakash Asphaltings and
Toll Highways India Ltd.
911900000.00
H1
2
Eagle Infra India Ltd.
783899999.00
H2
3
Ainul Hoque
652176525.00
H3
4
Mandeepa Enterprises
972999.00
H4
15. Since much hinges on this, we may extract the item rate BOQ of
respondent No. 1 which is as under:
Item Rate BoQ
Tender Inviting Authority: Superintending Engineer & Project
Director, Project Implementation Unit-I.
Name of Work: RUF Collection with HNETC System Integration
and Transaction Acquiring services at Fee collection plaza
under NETC programme through NPCI approved acquirer bank
including engagement of required man power for operation
of Road User Fee collection plaza for Dankuni Chandannagar
Mogra in Hooghly district SH 13.
Contract No: SL No. 3 of eNIB No. 07 of 2023-2024 of S.E. &
PD/PIU-I
Name of the Bidder/Bidding Firm/Company:
Mandeepa Enterprises
PRICE SCHEDULE
(This BOQ template must not be modified/replaced by the bidder and the same should be
uploaded after filling the relevant columns, else the bidder is liable to be rejected for this
tender. Bidders are allowed to enter the Bidder Name and Values only)
NUM
BER#
TEXT#
NUM
BER#
TEXT# NUMBER#
NUMBER#
TEXT#
SL.
No.
Name of the
road on which
Road User
Fee Plaza is
situated
Qua
ntity
Units
Amount of Road
User Fee in Figures
To be entered by
the Bidder for 1095
Days Rs. P
TOTAL
AMOUNT
(in figures)
exclusive of
all taxes
TOTAL
AMOUNT
In Words
802
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1.
RUF Collection
with HNETC
System
Integration and
Transaction
Acquiring
services at Fee
collection plaza
under NETC
progr-amme
through NPCI
approved
acquirer bank
including
engagement
of required
man power
for operation
of Road User
Fee collection
plaza for
Dankuni
Chandannagar
Mogra in
Hoogly
district SH 13.
(Scope of work
as per terms
and condition
laid down in
the NIB)
1
Nos
972999.00
972999.00
INR Nine Lakh
Seventy Two
Thousand
Nine Hundred
& Ninety Nine
Only
Total in Figures
972999.00
INR Nine Lakh
Seventy Two
Thousand
Nine Hundred
& Ninety Nine
Only
Quoted Rate in Words
INR Nine Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Nine Hundred & Ninety
Nine Only
16. After the financial bids were opened and became public, respondent
No. 1 made a request to the tender committee vide e-mail dated
13.12.2023. The e-mail was accompanied by an affidavit stating that
the amount offered was per day rate and that the said figure should be
worked out for the total contract period of 1095 days in which event,
the offer of respondent No. 1 would stand at Rs. 106,54,33,905.00
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
803
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
for the contract period. The tendering authority was requested to treat
the figure of Rs. 9,72,999.00 as a typographical error and the figure
offered by respondent No. 1 should be read as 106,54,33,905.00.
The authority was further requested to consider the same keeping
higher revenue in mind.
17. It appears that vide communication dated 20.12.2023, respondent No.
4 rejected the prayer of respondent No. 1 stating that such request
for correction of financial bid was not possible to be entertained as
it would impeach the sanctity of the tender process.
18. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High
Court seeking the following reliefs:
a)
Leave under Rule 26 of the Rules relating to petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to move
the writ petition before service of copy of the petition be
granted to the petitioner to move the writ petition before
service of copy thereof, in view of extreme urgency as
narrated hereinabove;
b)
A Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents and each
of them esp., the respondent No. 3, to rescind and/or
cancel and/or withdraw the letter rejecting the prayer of
the petitioner to amend the rate quoted by the petitioner
in the bid in respect of the tender process being Annexure
"P-1"to the petition forthwith;
c)
A Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to allow
the petitioner to amend and/or rectify the petitioner's bid
in respect of the tender process dated 17th October, 2023
being Annexure "P-1" hereto by quoting the rate for 1095
days instead or one day treating the same as bonafide and
inadvertent mistake of the petitioner and then to consider
the bid of the petitioner in the financial bid upon rectification
of the same in terms of the prayers of the petitioner made
in the letters and documents submitted by the petitioner on
13.12.2023, 15.12.2023 and 20.12.2023 in respect of the
tender process dated 17th October, 2023 being Annexure
"P-5", "P-6" and "P-7"· hereto;
d)
A writ of Certiorari calling upon the respondents and each
of them to certify and transmit all records in respect of
804
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
tender having Memo No. 590-R/PIU-I dated 17th October,
2023 being notice inviting Electronic Bid No. 07-2023-24
by the Superintending Engineer/ Project Director Unit-I
Public Works (Roads) Directorate being Annexure "P-1"
hereto and all subsequent letters and correspondences
being Annexure "P-2" to "P-8" hereto to this Hon'ble Court
so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing and/
or setting aside the letter of rejection by the respondent
No.3 dated 20th December, 2023 being Annexure "P-8"
hereto and by directing the respondent No. 3 to allow the
petitioner to rectify and/ or amend the bid for 1095 days
and further process the bid of the petitioner upon such
rectification in the financial bid of the said tender process
being Annexure "P-1" hereto;
e)
A Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents and each
of them, esp., the respondent No. 3 from indulging any
further non-action and/or inaction in allowing the petitioner
from rectifying the bid of the petitioner for l095 days and
from further taking any steps for issuing the Letter of
Acceptance (LOA) to the H-1 bidder in respect of the said
tender process being Annexure "P-1" hereto;
f)
Interim order directing the respondents and each of them,
esp., the respondent No. 3 from proceeding further in the
tender process being Annexure "P-1" hereto including
issuing the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the H-1 bidder
in respect of the tender process being Annexure "P-1"
hereto till the disposal of the writ petition;
g)
Ad-interim order of terms of prayer (f) above;
h)
Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and
(g) above;
i)
Costs;
j)
Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or
direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper.
19. The writ petition was registered as W.P.A. No. 29001 of 2023. A
Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide the
order dated 03.01.2024 by holding as under:
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
805
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
8.
Bona fides cannot be attributed to the petitioner;
rather, the petitioner was grossly negligent, since the
price schedule indicated in the BOQ, which found
place even in the bid of the petitioner itself, clearly
showed that the amount of Road User Fee in the
figures was to be entered by the bidder for 1095 days.
Even after knowing the same and being aware of the
various amounts involved by way of annual potential
collection and bid security, the petitioner committed
the error which it did.
9.
After the financial bid was opened, the petitioner
wrote to the tender issuing authorities. If such an
opportunity is to be given to a particular bidder, the
same would upset the entire tender process and, as
rightly argued by the respondents, would make the
tender process opaque and arbitrary.
10. The petitioner, with its eyes open, participated in
the bid and quoted an erroneous amount. As such,
the petitioner ought to suffer for the same and take
responsibility therefor. Even if the petitioner's bid, if
taken to be for 1095 days, would far exceed the next
highest bid, such opportunity cannot be given to the
petitioner to rectify its error after the entire bidding
process was over and the financial bids of all the
bidders were opened. Such chance, if given to the
petitioner, would be contrary to every known principle
of fairness pertaining to tenders and would amount
to a special favour being extended to the petitioner
for no particular reason.
11. Thus, there is no scope of interference in the tender
process.
20. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 1 preferred a letters patent appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court which was registered as
MAT No. 93 of 2024. Vide the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024,
the Division Bench of the High Court observed as under:
8.
*
*
*
*
*
Thus, in the light of the above undisputed factual
position we are of the considered view that the Tender
806
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Inviting Authority had sufficient leverage and play in
the joints to seek for any clarification or information
during the entire evaluation process and sub-clause
(b) of clause 5 of the Instruction to Bidders is not
restricted to the stage of evaluation of the technical
bid along but it encompasses the evaluation of the
entire tender right from the stage of inception till the
issuance of work order. This interpretation is proper
interpretation that should be given to the said clause
or else it would put shackles on the right of the Tender
Inviting Authority. The explanation offered by the
appellant is acceptable and the appellant's offer is
Rs.16 crore over and above the highest offer which
is now come to the light after the financial bid has
been opened.
9.
For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and
order passed in the writ petition is set aside and
the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to evaluate the appellant's BOQ by taking
the amount of Rs.106,54,33,905.00 for the period
of 1095 days as called for in the tender notification.
10. Since admittedly the affidavit for correction of the bid
document was submitted after opening the financial
bid, this Court feels that an opportunity is to be
granted to other bidders to match the price quoted
by the writ petitioner. The Tender Inviting Authority
shall call upon all the bidders who were found to
be technically qualified including the petitioner and
after evaluating the bids of all such bidders and after
giving opportunity to the other bidders, who are found
technically qualified, to match the corrected figures
quoted by the writ petitioner shall take a final decision
with regard to award of the contract in question.
21. It may be mentioned that both before the learned Single Judge as
well as before the Division Bench, appellant was not arrayed as a
party respondent, though on evaluation of the financial bids, it was
found to be the highest bidder (H1).
22. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.02.2024,
appellant preferred the related special leave petition. By order dated
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
807
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
27.05.2024, this Court granted permission to the appellant to file the
special leave petition. While issuing notice, this Court also stayed
the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2024. Thereafter, the
matter was heard on 08.08.2025 when leave was granted.
23. Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that
after the financial bids were opened, appellant was found to be and
was declared as the highest (H1) bidder by the tendering authority
on 13.12.2023. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 sought rectification/
correction of its financial bid only after the financial bids were opened
and only after the appellant was declared as H1. The tendering
authority was fully justified in rejecting the request of respondent
No. 1 for rectification/correction of its financial bid.
23.1. Learned Single Judge was justified in observing that if the
opportunity as sought for by respondent No. 1 is allowed,
the same would upset the entire tender process. Learned
Single Judge had rightly observed that respondent No. 1 had
participated in the tender process with its eyes wide open
and had quoted an erroneous amount. Even if its bid taken
for the entire contract period exceeds the highest bid, such
opportunity for rectification cannot be given to respondent
No. 1 to rectify its error after the entire bidding process was
over and the financial bids of all the tenderers were opened.
If this is accepted and respondent No. 1 is given such an
opportunity, it would be contrary to every known principle of
fairness pertaining to tenders and would amount to a special
favour being extended to respondent No. 1 for no particular
reason. Learned senior counsel submits that the view taken
by the learned Single Judge is the correct view and should not
have been interfered with by the Division Bench in a letters
patent appeal.
23.2. Mr. Gulati submits that in the proceedings before the learned
Single Judge, appellant was not made a party respondent
though it was the highest (H1) bidder. Though the relief claimed
by respondent No. 1, if granted, would have adversely affected
the appellant, this issue did not arise because the learned
Single Judge did not accept the contentions of respondent
No. 1 and had declined to interfere with the tender process.
23.3. However, in the intra-court appeal before the Division Bench,
respondent No. 1 again did not array the appellant as a party
808
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
respondent. Division Bench took the view that the tendering
authority had sufficient leverage and play in the joints to seek
any clarification or information during the tender evaluation
process. Learned senior counsel submits that the Division
Bench had interpreted Clause 5B(v) of the Instructions to
Bidders erroneously to hold that the tendering authority had
the discretion to seek any clarification or information at any
stage of the tender process right from the stage of inception
till issuance of the work order and thereafter to hold that any
other interpretation would put shackles on the functioning of
the tendering authority. Learned senior counsel submits that
the aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench is palpably
erroneous having the effect of unsettling the entire tender
process. Clause 5B(v) of the Instructions to Bidders cannot
be given such a broad interpretation. Referring to Clause 4(g)
of the tender conditions, he submits that it is clear therefrom
that change of Bill of Quantity (BOQ) would not be accepted
under any circumstances. If the view of the Division Bench
is accepted, there would be no finality attached to a tender
process which in turn would impeach the sanctity of the tender
process itself.
23.4. Learned senior counsel further submits that the final direction
of the Division Bench directing the tendering authority to
evaluate the BOQ of respondent No. 1 not at Rs. 9,72,999.00
which it held to be per day figure but to accept respondent
No. 1's BOQ at Rs. 106,54,33,905.00 for the entire contract
period has changed, the entire complexion of the tendering
process thereby rendering the position of the appellant wholly
untenable despite being declared as the highest (H1) bidder
by the tendering authority. This direction of the Division Bench
entails adverse civil consequences upon the appellant. Despite
being so, the Division Bench did not deem it appropriate to
get the appellant impleaded in the appellate proceedings.
Consequently, no notice was issued or opportunity of hearing
granted to the appellant by the Division Bench before disposing
of the intra-court appeal. This is in clear violation of the
principles of natural justice.
23.5. According to him, the reasoning adopted by the Division
Bench is highly questionable. Division Bench has taken the
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
809
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
view that if the BOQ amount of respondent No. 1 is read as
Rs. 106,54,33,905.00, the difference between the amount
quoted by respondent No. 1 and what is being offered by
the H1 bidder i.e. the appellant would be about 15 crores
and this additional amount would enure to the benefit of the
state exchequer. He submits that collecting higher revenue
is only one facet of public interest. The other aspect, which
is more important, is that because of the avoidable litigation
instituted by respondent No. 1, the State could not timely start
the contract work. As a result, it lost considerable amount of
revenue. However, this aspect of the matter was overlooked
by the Division Bench. He reiterates that if the view taken by
the Division Bench is accepted then there would be no finality
to a tender process.
23.6. Learned senior counsel to buttress his arguments has
submitted a compilation of judgments. Additionally, he has
also placed reliance on few other judgments. The decisions
relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are as under:
(i)
West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Patel
Engineering Company Limited1
(ii)
Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa2
(iii) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail
Corporation Limited 3
(iv) Johra Vs. State of Haryana4
(v)
M/s. ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited Vs. Union
of India5
23.7. Finally, learned senior counsel submits that whether on account
of violation of the principles of natural justice or on the point
of unduly interfering with a tender process, the impugned
judgment and order of the Division Bench cannot be sustained.
Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.
1
(2001) 2 SCC 451
2
(2007) 14 SCC 517
3
(2016) 16 SCC 818
4
(2019) 2 SCC 324
5
2025 INSC 215
810
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
24. Mr. Anurag Soan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has
opposed the challenge made by the appellant. He submits that the
Division Bench has rightly observed that the tendering authority have
the leverage to consider the clarifications as sought for by respondent
No. 1. According to him, the mistake committed by respondent No. 1
was a bona fide one and completely unintentional. Since ordinarily,
the rates sought for and offered in the tenders floated in the State of
West Bengal are on the basis of per day figures, respondent No. 1
offered per day BOQ figure whereas the figure ought to have been
a consolidated one for the entire contractual period of 1095 days.
This inadvertent mistake was detected only when the financial bids
were opened and without loss of time, respondent No. 1 promptly
e-mailed the tendering authority pointing out the mistake and sought
for rectification. This was supported by an affidavit. If the BOQ amount
of respondent No. 1 for the entire contractual period is calculated
based on the per day rate, the bid offer of respondent No. 1 would
be by far the highest; by an amount of Rs. 15 crores over the bid
value of the appellant. Therefore, there was no reason why the
tendering authority should have ignored the rectification effort of
respondent No. 1.
24.1. Learned counsel submits that to the extent the Division Bench
held that the tendering authority had the leverage to consider
such clarification, the decision is in favour of respondent
No. 1. However, the Division Bench ought to have declared
respondent No. 1 as the highest bidder because that would
be the natural consequence of acceptance of respondent
No. 1's rectification effort. But the direction of the Division
Bench to the state authorities to provide an opportunity to the
other bidders to match the BOQ figure of respondent No. 1 is
completely unwarranted. Viewed in that context, though the
intra-court appeal has been decided in favour of respondent
No. 1, it has actually been denied the consequential relief.
24.2. Mr. Soan submits that the BOQ figure offered by respondent
No. 1 was highest (H1) from day one; it was an inadvertent
mistake to declare the said amount as per day figure instead
of computing the total amount for the entire contractual period.
He submits that there is a material difference between a total
revision of price by quoting a new amount and clarifying the
existing price. The case of respondent No. 1 falls in the latter
category.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
811
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
24.3. Regarding non-joinder of appellant as a party respondent,
learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that respondent
no. 1 had approached the High Court seeking a writ of
mandamus against respondent No. 4 to allow rectification/
clarification of its financial bid owing to inadvertent mistake
and also sought for quashing of the rejection letter dated
20.12.2023 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby the request
for rectification/clarification of financial bid by respondent No.
1 was rejected. No relief was sought for against the appellant.
Evidently, bid of respondent No. 1 is substantially higher than
that of the appellant. Public at large would have benefitted
by such rectification/clarification. Therefore, non-joinder of
appellant as respondent to the proceedings before the High
Court is not fatal. Consequently, it cannot be said that there
is any violation of the principles of natural justice.
24.4. Learned counsel has referred to Clause 5B(v) of the Instructions
to Bidders which empowers the tendering authority to seek
clarification of the documents submitted by the bidders.
In terms of Clause D(ii) of the notice inviting bid, both the
technical bid and the financial bid were required to be submitted
simultaneously. Division Bench has correctly interpreted Clause
5B(v) of the Instructions to Bidders and such interpretation
warrants no interference. Learned counsel for respondent No.
1 submits that the clarified financial bid of respondent No. 1
should be accepted in the light of the larger public interest
otherwise the State would lose revenue by about 15 crores.
Public exchequer should not be made to suffer because of an
inadvertent mistake in quoting the BOQ figure by respondent
No. 1. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance
on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Supreme
Infrastructure India Limited Vs. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited6 in
which case, rectification/clarification was allowed by the Delhi
High Court.
24.5. Learned counsel further submits that matters relating to tender
and awarding of contract are essentially commercial functions.
In such matters, principles of equity and natural justice should
be kept at a distance.
6
2012 SCC Online Delhi 616
812
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
24.6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the mistake
committed by respondent No. 1 was so apparent when
compared with the annual potential collection of the contract
which is estimated in crores and the bid security is fixed at
Rs. 25 lakhs. Therefore, there was no reason for respondent
No. 1 to quote a figure of Rs. 9,72,000.00 as the bid price for
the entire contractual period of 1095 days. In the absence of
any allegation of malafides or collusion or fraud, respondent
No. 1's right to request for clarification was correctly allowed
by the Division Bench.
24.7. Clarifying the position, learned counsel submits that in an earlier
bid process in which respondent No. 1 participated, per day
figure was sought for. It was because of this that there was
confusion and respondent No. 1 followed the same protocol
in the present case. It was only when the financial bid was
opened that respondent No. 1 realised the inadvertent mistake.
Rectification of such apparent mistakes can in no manner be
said to vitiate the sanctity of the tender process as respondent
No. 1 is also a technically qualified bidder.
24.8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel
submits that no case for interference in the impugned judgment
is made out by the appellant and, therefore, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
25. Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 2 to 4, at the outset submits that though the State has not
challenged, the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench,
nonetheless it is ad idem with the appellant who has questioned the
impugned directions of the Division Bench.
25.1. Learned counsel submits that both on the issue of violation of
the principles of natural justice and interference with an ongoing
tender process by a court in a proceeding under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the impugned judgment and order
cannot be sustained.
25.2. She submits that both appellant and respondent No. 1
alongwith two other bidders were found to be technically
qualified. Thereafter, when the financial bids were opened, it
was found that the bid offered by the appellant was the highest
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
813
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
and therefore it was declared as H1. On the other hand, bid
of respondent No. 1 was found to be the lowest. Accordingly,
the tendering authority had finalized the bidders. Therefore,
when respondent No. 1 moved the High Court and the Division
Bench had substantially granted relief to respondent No. 1
having the potential to upset the financial bids of the bidders
as finalized by the tendering committee, it was necessary
that appellant should have been made a party respondent in
the proceedings before the High Court.