Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred; the prohibition on changing the BOQ template under Clause 4(g) precludes any post‑tender rectification, and the order directing such rectification is set aside and quashed.

Summary

The dispute arose from an electronic tender for a Road User Fee collection contract where the appellant, Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd, was the highest bidder and respondent No.1, Mandeepa Enterprises, was the lowest bidder. Respondent No.1 claimed it had mistakenly quoted a per‑day rate of Rs 9,72,999 instead of the total amount for the 1,095‑day contract and sought rectification, which the tendering authority rejected. The High Court Division Bench allowed the rectification, treating the quoted figure as a per‑day amount and directing the authorities to recompute the total bid, a decision the appellant challenged. The Supreme Court held that Clause 4(g) of the notice expressly forbids any change to the BOQ template, precluding post‑tender correction, and that the Division Bench’s order violated the sanctity of the tender process and the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside and quashed the High Court’s order, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in directing rectification of respondent No.1's financial bid by treating the quoted amount as a per‑day figure and recomputing the total for the contract period.
Whether Clause 4(g) of the notice inviting electronic bid, which prohibits any change in the BOQ template, bars post‑tender correction of a bid.
Whether the non‑impleadment and non‑hearing of the appellant violated principles of natural justice.
Whether judicial review under Article 226 can intervene in the tendering process in the circumstances presented.

Headnote

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 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 (non- passenger) at designated locations

Subjects

TenderElectronic bidRoad User Fee (RUF)Highest bidderLowest bidderBill of Quantity (BOQ)Rectification of bona fide mistakesNon-impleadmentNon-hearing of party

Judgment

[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 (non-
passenger) 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 intra-
court 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 17/10/2023
& Tender Documents
2. D o c u m e n t S a l e / 18/10/2023 from 10.00 a.m.
Download Start Date
3. Pre Bid Meeting with 03/11/2023 at 1.00 p.m.
the intending bidders 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. B i d S u b m i s s i o n / 08/11/2023 from 3.00 p.m.
Upload Start Date
5. B i d S u b m i s s i o n / 22/11/2023 upto 3.00 p.m.
Upload End Date
6. Date of opening of 24/11/2023 at 3.00 p.m.
Technical Proposals
7. D a t e o f o p e n i n g To be notified at the time of
o f F i n a n c i a l B i d / publishing List of Technically
Proposals 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 SI. Bidder Name Amount Bid
Name No. Rank
BoQ1 1 Prakash Asphaltings and 911900000.00 H1
Toll Highways India Ltd.
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 TEXT# NUM TEXT# NUMBER# NUMBER# TEXT#
BER# BER#
SL. Name of the Qua Units Amount of Road TOTAL TOTAL
No. road on which ntity User Fee in Figures AMOUNT AMOUNT
Road User To be entered by (in figures) In Words
Fee Plaza is the Bidder for 1095 exclusive of
situated Days Rs. P all taxes
802 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1. RUF Collection 1 Nos 972999.00 972999.00 INR Nine Lakh
with HNETC Seventy Two
System Thousand
Integration and Nine Hundred
Transaction & Ninety Nine
Acquiring Only
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)
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. As the appellant was
not put to notice and was not heard, the impugned directions
which are prejudicial to the appellant cannot be sustained.
25.3. Ms. Mukherjee further submits that the sanctity of the entire
tender process would be affected in case the corrections
suggested by the Division Bench are sustained. This would not
only be unfair to the bidders higher in rank than respondent
No. 1 but has unduly delayed finalisation of the contract.
25.4. After adverting to the facts of the case, learned counsel
representing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that in the
BOQ template contained in the tender papers, it was clearly
mentioned that the rate was to be quoted for the entire duration
of the contractual period i.e. for 1095 days. Therefore, the
assertion of respondent No. 1 that it had inadvertently quoted
rate on per day basis instead of 1095 days cannot be accepted.
In this connection, learned counsel has also referred to Clause
4(g) of the notice inviting bid which clearly prohibits change
in the template of BOQ. This type of post tender modification
of quoted rate as sought for by respondent No. 1 is not at
all permissible. In fact, because of this attempt on the part of
respondent No. 1, finalisation of the contract has been unduly
delayed which in turn has affected collection of government
revenue.
25.5. Elaborating further, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to
4 submits that respondent No. 1 did not mention anywhere in
its bid that the rate quoted by it was on ‘per day’ basis. It was
only after opening of the financial bid that respondent No. 1
claimed that the quoted rate was on per day basis. Respondent
No. 4 had rightly rejected such request construing it to be an
attempt to influence the bidding process.
814 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25.6. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the
Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the order of
the learned Single Judge and by directing respondent Nos.
2 to 4 to accept the computed bid of respondent No. 1 by
converting the figure from per day basis to the entire contract
period of 1095 days and thereafter to make an analysis with
the bids offered by the other bidders. In view of a catena of
judgments of this Court, such interference by a writ court is
simply not permissible.
25.7. Learned counsel therefore submits that as a matter of fact,
following the impugned judgment and order, all the four
technically qualified bidders were called upon to submit
their sealed bids afresh for 1095 days keeping the rates of
106,54,33,905.00 as the minimum. However, after this Court
granted stay, the aforesaid process has been cancelled.
25.8. Learned counsel finally submits that permitting an unsuccessful
bidder to raise grievance after opening of the financial bid
would set a bad precedent. If it is permitted, grievance of all
kinds and of all sorts would be forthcoming and the contracts
would never get executed.
26. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received
the due consideration of the Court.
27. Though we have adverted to the facts in the preceding paragraphs,
nonetheless for a proper appreciation it would be apposite to briefly
sum up the factual contours of the present controversy.
28. The contract in question relates to RUF collection at fee collection
plaza for Dankuni Chandannagar Mogra section of SH 13 in the District
of Hooghly, West Bengal. In terms of the notice inviting electronic
bid dated 17.10.2023, 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.
The tender comprised of two bid system: technical bid and financial
bid to be submitted concurrently digitally in the website of the West
Bengal Government. The rates should be quoted in both words and
figures in BOQ format. In case of any discrepancy between words
and figures, the rate quoted in words would be accepted as the
actual rate offered. After the bidding process, the selected bidder
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 815

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

will be treated as H1 bidder who will offer the highest remittance for
the contract period. The eligibility criteria made it clear that under no
circumstances, change in template of BOQ will be accepted.
28.1. In all, total of seven bidders had participated in the tender
process out of which four were shortlisted by the screening
committee on 06.12.2023 as being technically qualified. These
four included appellant and respondent No. 1.
28.2. Thereafter, financial bids of the four technically qualified
bidders were opened. On such opening, it was found that
the bid offered by the appellant at Rs. 91,19,00,000.00 for
1095 days was found to be the highest (H1) whereas the bid
offered by respondent No. 1 at Rs. 9,72,999.00 was found to
be the lowest (H4).
28.3. After the financial bids were opened and finalized, respondent
No. 1 made a request to respondent No. 4 vide email dated
13.12.2023 to change the rate offered by it by treating the
same as per day offer and on that basis, to compute the
amount for the entire contractual period of 1095 days which
figure would stand at Rs. 106,54,33,905.00. It was contended
that respondent No. 1 was therefore the highest bidder and its
rate was more than Rs. 15 crores above that of the appellant.
The mistake committed by it was an inadvertent one. Since it
would be beneficial to the public exchequer, respondent No.
4 was requested to correct the inadvertent mistake.
28.4. This prayer of respondent No. 1 was rejected by respondent
No. 4 vide the communication dated 20.12.2023.
28.5. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the
High Court being WPA No. 29001/2023. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide the
order dated 03.01.2024.
28.6. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 1 preferred a letters patent
appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court being MAT
No. 93 of 2024. Vide the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024,
the Division Bench allowed the appeal by directing respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 to evaluate the BOQ rate of respondent No. 1 by
treating Rs. 106,54,33,905.00 as the amount for the entire
contractual period of 1095 days instead of Rs. 9,72,999.00
816 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

which was treated to be a per day figure. However, since the
other bidders were not before the court, it was directed that
opportunity be granted to such bidders to match the price
quoted by respondent No. 1. After evaluating the bids of all
such bidder, the said respondents were directed to take a
final decision with regard to award of the contract in question.
29. Having noted the factual backdrop of the case, let us now examine
the relevant provisions of the tender conditions. We have already
noted that 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. Clause 5 of the Instructions to Bidders
which form part of the notice inviting electronic bid cautions the
bidders that care should be taken so that during evaluation of the
documents submitted by the bidders those are found to be neat
and clear and in a readable format, otherwise the bid would be
treated as cancelled. Clause 5B of the Instruction to Bidders deals
with bid evaluation. Clause 5B(v) says that during the process of
evaluation of bids, the notice inviting authority may summon and
seek clarification/information on additional supporting documents or
original hardcopies against any of the documents which are already
submitted/uploaded in the web portal. In the event, these are not
produced by the intending bidders within the stipulated time frame,
their proposals will be liable for rejection.
30. 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.
31. Our view is fortified by the item rate BOQ of respondent No. 1 which
we have extracted in paragraph 15 of this judgment. In column 5, the
heading is : amount of road user fee in figures to be entered by the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 817

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

bidder for 1095 days. As against this, respondent No. 1 quoted the
figure of Rs. 9,72,999.00. In words, i.e. in column 6, the quoted rate
was mentioned as nine lakhs seventy two thousand nine hundered
and ninety nine only.
32. 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. In columns 5, 6
and 7, respondent No. 1 filled up the amount in figures and words
as Rs. 9,72,999.00 and Rupees nine lakhs seventy two thousand
nine hundred and ninety nine respectively for 1095 days. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent or unintentional
mistake, as is being contended on behalf of respondent No. 1.
Therefore, 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.
33. In Patel Engineering Company Limited (supra), this Court had rejected
a similar contention that the mistakes were unintentional and had
occurred due to fault of the computer in the following manner:
23. The mistakes/errors in question, it is stated,
are unintentional and occurred due to the fault of
computer termed as “a repetitive systematic computer
typographical transmission failure”. It is difficult to
accept this contention. A mistake may be unilateral or
mutual but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional
it ceases to be a mistake. Here the mistakes may
be unintentional but it was not beyond the control
of Respondents 1 to 4 to correct the same before
submission of the bid. Had they been vigilant in
checking the bid documents before their submission,
the mistakes would have been avoided. Further,
correction of such mistakes after one-and-a-half
months of opening of the bids will also be violative
of clauses 24.1, 24.3 and 29.1 of the ITB.
33.1. This Court also held that tenders are invited on the basis of
competitive bidding. On the one hand, it offers a fair opportunity
to all those who are interested in competing for the contract and
on the other hand it affords the authority a choice to select the
818 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

best of competitors on a competitive price without prejudice to
the quality of the work. Above all, it eliminates favoritism and
discrimination in allotting public works to contractors. While
benefit to the public exchequer is certainly an important criteria
in award of contract, it is equally in public interest to adhere
to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited.
34. This Court in Jagdish Mandal (supra) after referring to earlier decisions
of this Court succinctly summed up the scope of judicial review of
award of contracts and held thus:
22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to
prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias
and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice
or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether
choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial
review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award
of contracts, certain special features should be borne in
mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating
tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial
functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at
a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract
is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in
exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a
procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice
to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will
not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at
the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.
The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always
seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful
tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and
business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of
some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to
self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power
of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences,
either interim or final, may hold up public works for years,
or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions
and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a
court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in
exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself
the following questions:
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 819

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

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made
by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone;
or
Whether the process adopted or decision made is
so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the
decision is such that no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could
have reached”;
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting
or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/
contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of
sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises)
stand on a different footing as they may require a higher
degree of fairness in action.
35. Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra) is a case where this Court
reiterated the proposition that the words used in the tender documents
cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous: they must
be given the due meaning and their necessary significance. The owner
or a employer of a project having authored the tender documents
is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements
and interpret its documents. Constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender documents unless
there is mala fides or perversity in the understanding or appreciation
or in the application of the terms of the tender documents. It is
possible that the view taken by the owner or the employer may not
be acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a
reason for interfering with the interpretation given. This Court held
as follows:
13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-
making process or the decision of the administrative
authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere.
The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before
the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making
process or the decision.
820 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

36. In the recent case of M/s. ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited (supra),
this Court has dealt with a similar issue as in the present case. In
that case, appellant was ranked as L-1 bidder with the bid price of
Rs. 1,569.00 (rupees one thousand five hundred and sixty nine only).
According to the appellant, they had quoted a bid price of Rs. 1,569
crores but due to system error, the quoted amount appeared just
as 1,569.00. After the financial bids were opened and announced,
appellant stated that it had discovered the mistake and accordingly
the mistake was informed to the respondent authority stating that its
actual bid was Rs. 1,569 crores and not Rs. 1,569.00. Though the
mistake was bald-faced, Border Roads Organization, the respondent
authority, insisted on accepting the bid inspite of the letters from the
appellant seeking to withdraw from the tender. Ultimately Border
Roads Organization declared the appellant as a defaulter and decided
to forfeit its bid security. Consequently, the bank guarantee was sought
to be encashed. It was in that context, this Court though observed
that the mistake was self evident, nonetheless it agreed with the
Border Roads Organization that the appellant was at fault and had
made the mistake of having failed to add the required zeroes in the
financial bid. The plea of system glitch put forth by the appellant was
not acceptable as the others had successfully uploaded their bids
without any problem. In the facts of that case, this Court noted that
there were subsequent developments leading to fresh tender and
award of contract though at a lower price. In the circumstances, this
Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1 crore to the Border Roads
Organization as a consequence of its error and upon receipt of the
same, Border Roads Organization was directed to return appellant’s
original bank guarantee.
37. Reverting back to the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra),
we find that this Court had also examined the issue regarding
impleadment of other bidders when a challenge is made to an award
of contract. This Court was of the view that it would be appropriate
for the constitutional courts to insist on all eligible bidders being
made parties to the proceedings filed by an unsuccessful or ineligible
bidder. It has been held as under:
18. Before we conclude, it is necessary to point out that
the High Court was of the opinion that the eligible bidders
were not entitled to be either impleaded in the petition
filed in the High Court by the ineligible bidder GYT-TPL
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 821

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

JV or were not entitled to be heard. With respect, this is
not the appropriate view to take in matters such as the
present. There are several reasons for this, one of them
being that there could be occasions (as in the present
appeals) where an eligible bidder could bring to the
notice of the owner or employer of the project that the
ineligible bidder was ineligible for additional reasons or
reasons that were not within the contemplation of the
owner or employer of the project. It was brought to our
notice by Afcons Infrastructure in these appeals that GYT-
TPL JV did not have any experience in the construction
of a viaduct by the segmental construction method and
that the translations of documents in Mandarin language
filed in the High Court were not true English translations.
Submissions made by the learned counsel for Afcons
Infrastructure in this regard are important and would have
had a bearing on the decision in the writ petition filed in
the High Court but since Afcons Infrastructure was not a
party in the High Court, it could not agitate these issues
in the writ petition but did so in the review petition which
was not entertained. It is to avoid such a situation that it
would be more appropriate for the constitutional courts
to insist on all eligible bidders being made parties to the
proceedings filed by an unsuccessful or ineligible bidder.
38. In Johra (supra), this Court reiterated the fundamental principle that
no order can be passed by any court in any judicial proceeding
against any party without hearing and without giving such party an
opportunity of hearing. In the facts of that case, the impugned order
was set aside on the ground that the same was passed without
hearing the appellant.
39. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in CIDCO Vs. Shishir Realty
Private Limited7, observed that when a contract is being evaluated,
the mere possibility of more money in the public coffers does not in
itself serve public interest. This Court held as follows:
61. When a contract is being evaluated, the mere possibility
of more money in the public coffers, does not in itself serve

7 (2012) 16 SCC 527
822 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

public interest. A blanket claim by the State claiming loss
of public money cannot be used to forego contractual
obligations, especially when it is not based on any evidence
or examination. The larger public interest of upholding
contracts and the fairness of public authorities is also in
play. The courts need to have a broader understanding of
public interest, while reviewing such contracts.
40. The above proposition has been followed by another three-Judge
Bench of this Court in the recent case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathore
Vs. Chief Executive Officer8, when it examined the concept of public
interest in administrative decisions relating to award of contracts.
This Court held that even assuming for a moment that there was
technical fault in the tender, which if rectified had the possibility of
generating more revenue, the same by no stretch could be said
to be a cogent reason for concealing an already existing tender.
This Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the sanctity
of tenders in governmental procurement processes. 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.
41. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the present case,
we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court clearly
fell in error in directing respondent No. 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. Such
an exercise is clearly impermissible having regard to the terms and

8 2024 SCC Online SC 1682
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 823

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

conditions of the contract which are required to be understood on
the anvil of this Court’s judgments. The authority granted to the
tendering authority by clause 5B (v) of the Instruction to Bidders
cannot be stretched to construe the price bid of respondent No. 1 as
the per day offer, contrary to the bid declaration of respondent No. 1
itself, and thereafter, on that basis to work out a new bid amount for
the entire contractual period making it the highest. In the present
case, respondent No. 1 was not at all vigilant; rather, it displayed a
very casual approach. In such circumstances, clause 5B(v) cannot
be invoked to resurrect the bid of respondent No. 1 to make it H1.
Clause 5B(v) of the Instruction to Bidders has to read conjointly with
clause 4(g) of the notice inviting electronic bid.
42. While judicial review is not excluded to assail administrative decisions
even in matters of tenders and contract, the long line of consistent
judicial pronouncements tells us that the constitutional courts should
exercise utmost restraint in interfering with a tender process unless
the threshold of judicial review are met, as explained in Jagdish
Mandal (supra) and in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra).
43. As is clearly discernible, appellant was a necessary party to the
proceedings before the High Court instituted by respondent No.
1 being the H1 bidder. Impugned directions of the High Court has
adversely affected the case of the appellant, downgrading its H1
status. The proposition that equity and natural justice should be kept
at bay during the course of tender evaluation, while fully applicable
to the case of respondent No. 1, cannot be applied to judicial
proceedings where tender evaluation is under judicial scrutiny, fairness
and natural justice being integral to the judicial process. Therefore,
non-impleadment and consequential non-hearing of the appellant
by the High Court, has vitiated the impugned judgment and order.
44. 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.
45. Thus, having regard to the above, impugned judgment and order
dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
824 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in MAT No. 93 of 2024 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside
and quashed. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would be free to proceed
with and finalise the award of contract in terms of the notice inviting
electronic bid dated 17.10.2023.
46. Civil appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order
as to cost.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan