Sympathy Cannot Override Binding Conditions of Tender: Supreme Court Sets  Aside High Court’s Direction to Alter Applicant’s Group Classification for BPCL Dealership

Public Trust Doctrine and Strict Compliance with Tender Terms Must Prevail Over Humanitarian Considerations” — In a significant judgment delivered on April 2, 2025  Supreme Court of India ruled that a candidate’s inadvertent mistake in categorizing herself under an incorrect group in a petroleum dealership application cannot be corrected post-facto. The Court observed that “the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, passed the order out of sympathy, which may have been misplaced as a ground of exercise of such power.”

The controversy arose when the respondent, Soundarya, applied for a BPCL petrol pump under the Scheduled Caste category but mistakenly applied under Group 2 (firm offer of land) instead of Group 1 (ownership of land). Despite repeated representations, BPCL refused to alter her group classification citing explicit selection guidelines. The High Court had directed BPCL to reconsider her under Group 1 citing the welfare objective for Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court reversed this finding.  

The Supreme Court held, “Since a clear procedure stands laid down by the competent authority, there exists no room for any discretion to be exercised in favour of the respondent. The representations made by the respondent terming her application under Group 2 to be an error, cannot be considered.”

 The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan, underscored that “mentioning the incorrect group in the application form is not an exercise in simpliciter”, noting that the entire tender process and selection were strictly governed by rules, which disallowed post-submission corrections.  

The Court noted that the BPCL guidelines specifically mandated that “the applicant must declare the group correctly, supported by an advocate’s confirmatory letter and requisite ownership documents”. The respondent’s failure to comply could not be overlooked by invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court warned that “Public Sector Undertakings like BPCL deal with precious natural resources held by the State in Public Trust”, emphasizing that contractual processes must be respected.  

The Court stressed, quoting Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, “Courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder.” However, it cautioned that in this case, “the error was neither minor nor curable without affecting the entire selection process.”

 The Bench went further to explain that judicial review In commercial matters must balance fairness with adherence to established procedure, observing that “the courts must give fair play in the joints to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.”

 On the issue of repeated litigation by the respondent, the Court observed disapprovingly, “The manner in which the respondent took recourse to the law was unjustified… The petrol pump could not be established in the last 7 years, thereby seriously prejudicing public interest.”

Finally, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and BPCL was directed to proceed strictly as per the notified rules. The Supreme Court concluded: “The respondent hoped, by the effect of the law, to get an advantage to which she was in no way entitled, leading to loss of judicial time and public money.”

 Date of Decision: April 2, 2025