PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED versus MANDEEPA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 794 · Decided: 12-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 794 : 2025 INSC 1108
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited 
v. 
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 11418 of 2025)
12 September 2025
[Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court fell in error in directing 
respondent nos. 2 to 4 to allow rectification of the financial bid of 
respondent no.1 by treating the amount offered by it as the per 
day figure and on that basis to compute the total amount for the 
entire contractual period of 1095 days.
Headnotes†
Tender – Electronic bid – A notice inviting electronic bid was 
issued for engaging complete Road User Fee (RUF) collection 
operator for RUF collection from commercial vehicles (non-
passenger) at designated locations – The contract period was 
for 1095 days – On opening of financial bids, it was found 
that appellant-Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) 
Limited was the highest bidder with the quoted amount of Rs. 
91,19,00,000/- (for 1095 days) and respondent no. 1 was the 
lowest bidder (H4) at the offered amount of Rs. 9,72,999/- – 
Respondent no. 1 made a request to respondent no. 4 to change 
the rate offered by it by treating the same as per day offer 
and on that basis, figure would stand at Rs. 106,54,33,905/- – 
Prayer was rejected – Writ petition – Single Judge of the High 
Court dismissed the writ petition – However, the Division 
Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal by directing 
respondent nos. 2 to 4 to evaluate the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) 
rate of respondent no. 1 by treating Rs. 106,54,33,905/- as 
the amount for the entire contractual period of 1095 days 
instead of Rs. 9,72,999/- which was treated to be a per day 
figure – Correctness:
Held: Clause 4 of the notice inviting electronic bid lays down the 
eligibility criteria for participation in bid – Clause 4(g) specifically 
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 
795
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v.  
Mandeepa Enterprises and Others
says that any change in the template of BOQ will not be accepted 
under any circumstances – Division Bench of the High Court has 
interpreted this clause in a broad way to include rectification of 
bona fide mistakes in quoting BOQ rates by the bidders – This 
provision is meant to empower the notice inviting authority to seek 
clarification or further information regarding any document filed 
by a bidder – This cannot be interpreted so broadly as to include 
rectification of the BOQ rates which is governed by Clause 4(g) 
of the notice inviting electronic bid putting a complete embargo 
to any change in the template of BOQ; the prohibition is specific: 
change in the template of BOQ will not be accepted under any 
circumstances – The view of this Court is fortified by the item 
rate BOQ of respondent no. 1 entered into figure for 1095 days – 
Therefore, though the contention of respondent no. 1 is that it 
had made an inadvertent mistake in quoting the BOQ rate of per 
day figure instead of the total contract period of 1095 days, a 
closer scrutiny would however belie such contention – Allowing 
respondent no. 1 to rectify such mistakes after finalization of the 
financial bid would be highly improper as it would have the effect 
of unsettling the entire tender process – The Division Bench of 
the High Court clearly fell in error in directing respondent nos. 2 
to 4 to allow rectification of the financial bid of respondent No. 1 
by treating the amount offered by it as the per day figure and on 
that basis to compute the total amount for the entire contractual 
period of 1095 days – Also, non-impleadment and consequential 
non-hearing of the appellant by the High Court, has vitiated the 
impugned judgment and order – Thus, impugned judgment and 
order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and quashed. 
[Paras 29-32, 43, 45]
Case Law Cited
West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Company 
Limited [2001] 1 SCR 352 : (2001) 2 SCC 451; Jagdish Mandal v. 
State of Orissa [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 606 : (2007) 14 SCC 517; 
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation 
Limited [2016] 3 SCR 551 : (2016) 16 SCC 818; CIDCO v. Shishir 
Realty Private Limited [2021] 13 SCR 190 : (2012) 16 SCC 527 – 
relied on.
Johra v. State of Haryana [2018] 14 SCR 970 : (2019) 2 SCC 324; 
M/s. ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited v. Union of India, 2025 
796
[2025]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.