Supreme Court Holds Post‑opening Correction of BOQ Rate Impermissible; Quashes High Court Direction to Recompute Bid

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal by Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. challenging a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which had allowed an intra‑court appeal by another bidder to rectify its financial bid after opening. The core issue related to whether a tendering authority could permit a bidder to treat a quoted amount as a per‑day rate and recompute the total for a 1,095‑day contract after financial bids had been opened, and whether the non‑impleadment of the declared highest bidder vitiated the High Court's direction.

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the Division Bench order dated 23.02.2024 and held that the High Court erred in directing respondents to treat the disputed figure as a per‑day rate and recompute a new total after bid opening. The Court emphasised that the contractual documents and BOQ template were decisive and that Clause 4(g) of the NIT — “Any change in template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances” — foreclosed post‑opening modifications. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further held that Clause 5B(v) of the Instructions to Bidders—permitting clarification of uploaded documents—could not be stretched to resurrect a bid figure contrary to the BOQ template and the bidder’s own filled columns, and that non‑impleadment of the successful H1 bidder (Prakash Asphaltings) in the High Court proceedings vitiated the impugned directions.

Background The dispute arose from an e‑tender issued by the West Bengal PWD for Road User Fee collection at a Dankuni‑Chandannagar plaza for a 1,095‑day contract. The BOQ expressly required bidders to enter the “amount of Road User Fee in figures to be entered by the bidder for 1095 Days.” Four bidders were technically qualified and their financial bids were opened: Prakash Asphaltings emerged as H1 with Rs. 91,19,00,000 (for 1,095 days); Mandeepa Enterprises (respondent No.1) had its BOQ filled as Rs. 9,72,999 (in figures and in words) and was ranked H4. After opening, Mandeepa emailed the authority claiming the figure was a per‑day rate and sought correction to Rs. 106,54,33,905 for the full period; the tendering authority rejected that request as jeopardising sanctity of the process. Mandeepa moved the Calcutta High Court; a Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that “Bona fides cannot be attributed to the petitioner; rather, the petitioner was grossly negligent,” and that post‑opening correction would “upset the entire tender process.” On letters patent appeal the Division Bench allowed rectification, directed respondents to recompute Mandeepa’s BOQ as the larger amount and to give other technically qualified bidders an opportunity to match that price. The State respondents and Prakash Asphaltings (not impleaded in the High Court proceedings) challenged that order before the Supreme Court; this Court stayed the Division Bench order, heard the appeal and, relying on precedents including Patel Engineering, Jagdish Mandal, Afcons and recent authorities, reiterated that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with tender processes, must give effect to unambiguous contractual clauses, and should ensure all affected bidders are heard. The Supreme Court concluded that Mandeepa’s BOQ entries in figures and words for 1,095 days belied the claimed inadvertent per‑day error, and that permitting correction would unsettle the tender; it therefore quashed the Division Bench order and held respondents free to proceed to finalise the award under the original tender terms. No order as to costs was made. The earlier interim stay granted by this Court remained in place pending finalisation; the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court was set aside.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11418 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12510 of 2024); Citation: 2025 INSC 1108 Case Title: Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises and Others Appearances: For the Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s): Mr. Kavin Gulati, Senior Counsel (for Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Soan (for Mandeepa Enterprises); Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee (for Respondents 2–4, State authorities)