WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus PATEL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ORS.

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus PATEL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Correction of errors in tender documents after bid opening, except arithmetic mistakes permitted under ITB Clause 29, cannot be allowed. Adherence to tender instructions is mandatory and cannot give way even if a bid is the lowest. Judicial review can quash communication unlawfully, but cannot direct bid correction beyond ITB scope. Hence, High Court erred in permitting correction of bid errors; only quashing of appellant communication was within its power.

Parties
Appellant: West Bengal State Electricity Board; Respondent: Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Taisei Corporation; Respondent: Skanska International
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Tender, Correction of Bids, Competitive Bidding, Judicial Review
Government Contracts Tender Correction of Bids Competitive Bidding Judicial Review

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

West Bengal State Electricity Board

Appellant

Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Taisei Corporation

Respondent

Skanska International

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bidders can correct errors in tender documents after bid opening under ITB rules
  2. 2 Whether award of contract should go to lowest bid despite inconsistencies
  3. 3 Whether High Court can direct correction of errors in bids in exercise of judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Correction of errors in tender documents after bid opening, except arithmetic mistakes permitted under ITB Clause 29, cannot be allowed. Adherence to tender instructions is mandatory and cannot give way even if a bid is the lowest. Judicial review can quash communication unlawfully, but cannot direct bid correction beyond ITB scope. Hence, High Court erred in permitting correction of bid errors; only quashing of appellant communication was within its power.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of High Court quashing appellant's communication upheld
  • Direction to appellant to permit correction of bid documents and consider corrected bid set aside