Post-Bid Alteration Destroys Transparency—Tender Process Must Conclude with Finality: Supreme Court Disallows Post-Bid Rectification in BOQ Error

“No Correction Allowed After Opening of Financial Bids — Even Bona Fide Mistakes Must Bow to Tender Terms,” In a decisive reaffirmation of procedural rigour in public procurement, the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. Mandeepa Enterprises & Others, allowed an appeal against a Division Bench judgment that had controversially permitted the post-bid rectification of a financial quote in a public tender. The Court held that no rectification of a Bill of Quantities (BOQ) is permissible after bid submission and that adherence to the tender’s sanctity far outweighs speculative financial gains to the state.

The judgment, authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and concurred by Justice Manoj Misra, clarified that Clause 4(g) of the tender documents categorically prohibits any modification of the BOQ template “under any circumstances.” The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, by allowing a bidder to rework its quote after the financial bids were opened, had breached both tender conditions and principles of natural justice, the Court said.

“The authority granted to the tendering authority by Clause 5B(v) of the Instructions to Bidders cannot be stretched to construe the price bid of respondent No. 1 as the per day offer... Clause 5B(v) cannot be invoked to resurrect the bid of respondent No. 1 to make it H1.” — Para 41

“Public Interest Includes Procedural Integrity — Not Just Maximum Revenue”

The Court soundly rejected the argument that higher revenue to the public exchequer could justify judicial interference in the tender process, holding that public interest is not confined to monetary gain, but includes transparency, predictability, and equal treatment of bidders.

“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.” — Para 44

The case arose from a public tender floated by the Public Works Directorate, Government of West Bengal, for the Road User Fee (RUF) collection at Dankuni-Chandannagar-Mogra in Hooghly district. The contract spanned 1095 days, with a potential annual revenue of ₹21.60 crores.

Of the seven bidders, four were technically qualified. Among them, Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. (the appellant) was declared H1 after quoting ₹91.19 crores for the entire contract period. Mandeepa Enterprises (Respondent No. 1), however, quoted ₹9,72,999, which the BOQ clearly required “for 1095 days”. Mandeepa, after realizing the figure was unexpectedly low, claimed it was a per-day quote and sought post-bid correction to reflect a total of over ₹106 crores.

This request was rejected by the tender authority, and the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dismissed Mandeepa’s writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench allowed the correction, directing that Mandeepa’s figure be treated as per-day, and instructed re-evaluation of bids — without even hearing the original H1 bidder.

“Any Change in the BOQ Template Will Not Be Accepted Under Any Circumstances” — Tender Clause Is Absolute

Clause 4(g) of the tender documents left no room for interpretation: “Any change in template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances.” — Clause 4(g), NIB

The Court observed that this clause prohibited not just format modification, but also changes in any entered data post-submission, including correction of prices. The Division Bench’s reasoning, which interpreted Clause 5B(v) as empowering the tendering authority to entertain clarifications or corrections at any stage, was found to be erroneous and excessive.

“This provision is meant to empower the notice inviting authority to seek clarification... not to allow rectification of the BOQ rates. The prohibition is specific.” — Para 30

Court Finds Bidder's Alleged Mistake Not Inadvertent — No Per Day Mention Anywhere

The Court reviewed the actual BOQ submitted by Mandeepa Enterprises and found that the quoted rate of ₹9,72,999 was clearly stated for the entire 1095 days, both in figures and words. This undermined the plea of inadvertent error.

“In such circumstances, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent or unintentional mistake, as is being contended... Allowing rectification would be highly improper.” — Para 32

The Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., where a similar plea of “computer fault” was rejected:

“A mistake may be unintentional, but it was not beyond the control of respondents to correct before submission... Correction after one-and-a-half months of bid opening violates tender clauses.” — Para 33

“Natural Justice Is Not a Casualty in Judicial Proceedings”— H1 Bidder Must Be Heard

A striking violation of the principles of natural justice was highlighted by the Court: Prakash Asphaltings, the H1 bidder, was not impleaded in either the writ petition or the letters patent appeal before the High Court, even though its position was directly threatened by the relief sought.

“Non-impleadment and consequential non-hearing of the appellant by the High Court has vitiated the impugned judgment and order.” — Para 43

Referring to Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corp., the Court reiterated that all eligible bidders must be made parties when judicial review interferes with tender evaluation, to ensure fairness.

“Judicial Review of Tender Decisions Must Meet a High Threshold”

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review in tender matters is narrow in scope, citing Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, and is permissible only in cases of mala fides, arbitrariness, or gross procedural illegality. It observed that the High Court’s interference failed to meet these thresholds.

“A mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere.” — Afcons, Para 35 quoted

Rectification After Financial Bid Opening Undermines Finality and Fairness

The core reasoning of the Court is a reinforcement of finality in competitive bidding:

“If post-bid rectification is permitted, the integrity of the entire process stands compromised. No contract will be safe from challenge, no bid secure from reopening.” — Paraphrased from Para 41

The Court dismissed the argument that the correction would benefit the state, holding:

“The mere possibility of more money in the public coffers does not in itself serve public interest.” — Para 39, citing CIDCO v. Shishir Realty Pvt. Ltd.

High Court Judgment Set Aside, Tender Restored

Holding that the Division Bench had grossly erred in directing post-bid modifications and in proceeding without hearing the H1 bidder, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment dated 23.02.2024, and directed the tendering authority to proceed with the original bid results as per the Notice Inviting Bids.

“The impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2024... is hereby set aside and quashed. Respondents are free to finalise the contract in terms of the original NIB dated 17.10.2023.” — Para 45

Date of Decision: September 12, 2025