POOJA CERATECH PRIVATE LIMITED versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 03-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 441
441
POOJA CERATECH PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19006 Of 2021)
DECEMBER 03, 2021
[ M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ]
Tender: Tender process – Security interest deposit – Forfeiture
of – Bidder participated in the tender process – Bidder sought
permission to modify his price bid on the ground of mistake committed
in offering the price – Howver, the bidder disqualified – Corporation
then decided to invoke the bank guarantees furnished by the bidder
towards the security interest deposit invoking clause 14.5(b) of the
tender document – Writ petition by the bidder challenging the
decision of the Corporation to forfeit the security interest deposit
by invoking the bank guarantees – Writ petition dismissed by the
High Court holding that in a contractual matter, the writ petition
u/Art. 226 not maintainable – Correctness of – Held: High Court
justified in dismissing the writ petition – As per Clause 14.5 of the
tender document, the security deposit submitted by the bidders would
be forfeited by the Corporation in the event bidder varies or modifies
the bid in a manner not acceptable to ONGC during the validity
period or any extension thereof duly agreed by the bidder – Action
of the Corporation in consonance with the terms and conditions of
the tender document – It cannot be said that it was not a case of
modification of the bid but an arithmetical error in calculation which
was sought to be corrected – Furthermore, the request for
modification/variation of the bid offer was made during the validity
period, thus, clause 14.5(b) of the tender document applicable – In
view thereof, order passed by the High Court upheld.
Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development
Authority and Anr. (2015) 4 SCC 136 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2015) 4 SCC 136
referred to
Para 5
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(C) No.19006 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2021 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.3569 of 2020.
Malak Manish Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Vijay Patel, Anubhav
Taneja, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain, Ms. Tannu, Ms. Mitika Choudhary, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special
Civil Application No.3569 of 2020 by which the High Court has dismissed
the said writ application preferred by the petitioner, the original writ
petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
2. The respondent – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
issued a tender notice for sale of gas. That the writ applicant participated
in the tender process by offering its bid. The petitioner received an e-
mail on 29.11.2019 from one of the officers of the Corporation informing
that upon evaluation of the technical bids on 17.09.2019, the price bids
were to be opened on 03.12.2019 at 03.00 PM. That the petitioner
requested the Corporation to permit him to modify his price bid on the
ground that he has committed a mistake in offering the price. Initially, it
was decided to postpone the opening of the price bids, however, the
Corporation thereafter decided to open the price bids in absence of the
writ petitioner. That thereafter the Corporation disqualifying the writ
applicant, decided to invoke the bank guarantees furnished by the writ
applicant towards the security interest deposit invoking clause 14.5(b)
of the tender document. The writ applicant challenged the decision of
the Corporation to forfeit the security interest deposit by invoking the
bank guarantees. The writ petitioner preferred writ petition before the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court keeping the question “whether in a
contractual matter, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
will be maintainable or not?” considered the matter on merits and has
dismissed the writ petition, which has given rise to the present special
leave petition.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
3. We have heard Shri Malak Manish Bhat, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Shri Bhat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has heavily relied upon the decision of this C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.