LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Non-compliance with the 'firm and fixed price' requirement excluded the petitioners' bid from consideration, and their withdrawal of the FERV clause after bid opening did not cure non-responsiveness. Respondent No.4's bid met all eligibility requirements and was rightly awarded the contract. The standards of eligibility cannot be relaxed post facto without violating Article 14.

Parties
Petitioner: Larsen and Toubro Ltd.; Petitioner: Lt. Col. Ajay Bhatia (Retired); Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Cochin Shipyard Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposal; Appeal Against Delhi High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petition
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Tender Eligibility, Bid Responsiveness, Arbitrariness and Article 14
Administrative Law Government Contracts Constitutional Law Tender Eligibility Bid Responsiveness Arbitrariness and Article 14

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Petitioner

Lt. Col. Ajay Bhatia (Retired)

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposal; Appeal Against Delhi High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bidder can amend its bid by withdrawing a non-responsive condition after bids are opened
  2. 2 Whether the bid of the petitioner should be treated as responsive after withdrawal of Foreign Exchange Rate Variation clause
  3. 3 Whether the bid by Respondent No.4 satisfied the 'firm and fixed price' requirement

Ratio Decidendi

Non-compliance with the 'firm and fixed price' requirement excluded the petitioners' bid from consideration, and their withdrawal of the FERV clause after bid opening did not cure non-responsiveness. Respondent No.4's bid met all eligibility requirements and was rightly awarded the contract. The standards of eligibility cannot be relaxed post facto without violating Article 14.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with High Court judgment; SLP dismissed
  • No order as to costs