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

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 15-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
PATEL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
JANUARY 15, 2001 
B 
[S.S.M. QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Government Contracts; 
Tender-Bids-Correction of-State Electricity Board invited tenders 
C for a proposed power project-The Instructions to Bidders (/Tf!), iter alia, 
provided that in case of discrepancy between the unit rate and the line item 
total resulting from multiplying the unit rate by the quantity, the unit rate 
as quoted would govern-After su.bmission of bids, one of the bidders informed 
the Board that there was "a repetitive systematic computer typographical 
D transmission failure" and requested that it be corrected-It was further pointed 
out that the Indian Rupee unit stated in the first line Item 0.2 was repeated 
in the next two succeeding lines, which was clerical in nature and not an 
arithmetic error-Board evaluated the bid and informed the bidder that 
there were number of errors and requested for their response-Bidder filed 
a writ petition-Single Judge by an interim order directed the Board to 
E consider representation of the bidder-The decision taken by the Board not 
approved by High Court-Therefore, Single Judge directed the Board to 
reconsider representation of the bidder-Division Bench dismissed appeals 
and cross objections-Correctness of-Held: A mistake may be unilateral or 
mutual but it is always unintentional-If it is intentional it ceases to be a 
F 
mistake-The mistakes were not beyond the control of the bidder-Such 
mistakes could have been corrected before submission of bid-Jn an 
inlernational competitive bidding. bidders should have the assistance of 
technical experts-Great degree of care is required in such bidding-No 
change in the price or substance of the bid after its opening can be sought, 
offered or permitted-Hence, High Court erred in permitting the bidders to 
G correct the errors in their bids. 
H 
Tender-Bids-Lowest bid-Contract-Awarding of-Principles-Held: 
Principle of awarding of contract to lowest tenderer applies when all things 
are equal-Merely because a bid is lowest compliance of rules and conditions 
cannot be dispensed with-On facts, lowest bid directed not to be considered 
352 
W. BENGAL STATE ELEC. BOARD v. PATEL ENG. CO. LTD. 
353 
~ 
due to inconsistencies between particulars of bids and total bid amount. 
A 
~ 
The appellant invited tenders for a power project. Clause 29.1 of the 
Instruction to Bidders (ITB) provided, inter alia, that in case of discrepancy 
between the unit rate and the line item total resulting from multiplying the 
unit rate by the quantity, the unit rate as quoted would govern. Respondents 
B 
I to 4 after submission of their bids .informed the appellant that there was 
"a repetitive systematic computer typographical transmission failure" and 
lT 
requested that it be corrected. Respondents I to 4 further pointed out that 
Indian Rupee unit stated in the first line Item 0.2 was repeated in the next 
two succeeding lines, which was clerical in nature and not an arithmetic 
error. Respondents I to 4 also emphasised that their bids were the lowest c 
and assured that they would maintain the bid price. The appellant evaluated 
their bids and informed respondents I to 4 that a number of errors were 
)( 
discovered and requested for their response. 
Being aggrieved respondents I to 4 filed a writ petition before the High 
Court. Single Judge by an interim order directed the appellant to consider D 
the representation of respondents 1 to 4. The decision taken by the appellant 
was not approved by the High Court. Therefore, the Single Judge directed 
the appellant to reconsider the representation of respondents I to 4. The 
... 
Division Bench dismissed the appeals and cross objections filed by the 
appellant and respondents 1 to 4 respectively and upheld the order of the E 
Single Judge. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal partly, the Court 
-· 
HELD: I. The only prohibition contained in the Instruction to Bidders 
(ITB) is that no change in the price or substance of the bid after its opening F 
can be sought, offered or permitted. In that regard the appellant had made 
its position clear. The prohibition is, therefore, not aitracted. In these 
circumstances any reasonable person in the position of the appellant would 
have sought clarification from respondents I to 4. Even assuming that no 
clarification was required to be sought by the appellant, it cannot but be held G 
that correction

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