Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited vs Mandeepa Enterprises
Background
In a West Bengal government e-tender, Mandeepa Enterprises (respondent no.1) mistakenly quoted its price as a per-day rate instead of the rate for the entire 1095-day contract period, making its bid appear far too low. When the State refused to let it correct the figure and treat it as the highest bidder, Mandeepa filed a writ petition, which a Single Judge dismissed but a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed, directing the tendering authority to recompute Mandeepa's bid using the corrected figure and to give other bidders a chance to match it. Prakash Asphaltings, the appellant here and the actual highest bidder (H1) under the original terms, had not been made a party to that High Court proceeding and challenged the Division Bench's order before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the tender's own bidding instructions could not be stretched to reinterpret Mandeepa's declared price bid as a per-day figure contrary to what it had actually submitted, especially where Mandeepa had shown a casual approach rather than vigilance in reviewing its bid. The Court emphasised that constitutional courts must exercise restraint in interfering with tender processes unless a high threshold of judicial review is met, and that the sanctity of the tender process and fairness to all bidders must be protected. Because the appellant, whose H1 status was directly and adversely affected, had never been impleaded or heard by the High Court, its judgment was found to violate natural justice and was set aside, restoring the original tender evaluation.
Lesson Learnt
A bidder cannot be granted relief that effectively rewrites its own tender submission after the fact, and any party whose commercial position will be directly hurt by a court's order in a tender dispute must be given a chance to be heard before that order is passed.