Summary and Analysis of Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways India Limited vs Mandeepa Enterprises & Ors 2025 INSC 1108

1. Heading of the Judgment

Tender Law – Post-Bid Rectification – Sanctity of Bidding Process – Judicial Review in Contractual Matters

Citation: Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises & Ors., 2025 INSC 1108 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 12.09.2025)

2. Relevant Laws and Legal Provisions

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 (Writ Jurisdiction)

• Indian Contract Act, 1872

• General Clauses Act, 1897

• Relevant Tender Clauses:
  Clause 4(g) of NIT: Prohibition on changes to BOQ template
  Clause 5B(v) of Instructions to Bidders: Clarification during evaluation

3. Basic Details of the Case

• Parties:
  Appellant: Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited (H1 Bidder)
  Respondents: Mandeepa Enterprises (Original Petitioner), State of West Bengal & Ors.

• Tender: NIT No. 07 of 2023–24 for Road User Fee (RUF) Collection in West Bengal

• Contract Period: 1095 days

• Bid Value: Appellant quoted ₹91.19 crores; Respondent No. 1 quoted ₹9.72 lakhs

• High Court:
  Single Judge: Dismissed writ petition
  Division Bench: Allowed appeal, permitted rectification

• Supreme Court: Allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench’s order

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Factual Background

• The State of West Bengal invited bids for RUF collection. The tender required bidders to quote a lump sum amount for 1095 days.

• Respondent No. 1 (Mandeepa Enterprises) quoted ₹9,72,999.00 instead of the intended per-day rate, which would have totaled ₹106.54 crores.

• After the financial bids were opened and the appellant was declared H1, Respondent No. 1 sought rectification, claiming a clerical error.

• The tendering authority rejected the request. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge but allowed by the Division Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether post-bid rectification of a financial bid is permissible?

2. Whether the tender conditions allowed such rectification?

3. Whether the Division Bench erred in interfering with the tender process?

4. Whether the appellant (H1 bidder) was a necessary party?

Supreme Court’s Analysis

a. Sanctity of Tender Process

• The Court emphasized that tender conditions are binding and must be strictly adhered to.

• Clause 4(g) of the NIT explicitly prohibited any change to the BOQ template.

• Clause 5B(v) of the Instructions to Bidders allowed only clarifications on already submitted documents, not rectification of bid amounts.

• The Court held that permitting post-bid changes would undermine the fairness and transparency of the bidding process.

b. Judicial Review in Tender Matters

• The Court reiterated the principles from Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orisha (2007) 14 SCC 517:
  Judicial review in tender matters is limited to checking for mala fides, arbitrariness, or irrationality.
  Courts should not interfere with commercial decisions of the state unless there is a clear violation of constitutional or legal principles.

• The Division Bench erred in substituting its own view for that of the tendering authority.

c. Natural Justice and Necessary Parties

• The appellant, being the H1 bidder, was a necessary party to the writ proceedings.

• The Division Bench’s order adversely affected the appellant’s rights without giving them a hearing.

• This violated principles of natural justice (Johra v. State of Haryana (2019) 2 SCC 324).

d. Public Interest

• While generating higher revenue is in public interest, it cannot override the sanctity of the tender process.

• The Court cited CIDCO v. Shishir Realty (2021) and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathore v. CEO (2024) to emphasize that public interest includes upholding contractual integrity and fairness.

e. Precedents Relied Upon

• Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. v. WBSEB (2001) 2 SCC 451: Post-bid corrections not permitted.

• Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corp. (2016) 16 SCC 818: Courts must defer to employer’s interpretation of tender documents.

• ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025) INSC 215: Bidder’s negligence cannot be rectified post-bid.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and restored the Single Judge’s decision.

• The tendering authority was directed to proceed with the award of contract to the appellant as the H1 bidder.

• The Court held that post-bid rectification is not permissible and that the tender process must be upheld to ensure fairness and competitiveness.