Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a recent case, the Patna High Court upheld a three-year suspension order against a supplier for quoting tender prices in the wrong unit. The case revolved around a bid submitted by a private firm for the supply of DPC Aluminum winding wire to the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. (NBPDCL). The firm had quoted its prices per kilogram (Kg) instead of the prescribed unit, metric ton (MT), as required by the tender’s terms and conditions.

The firm was initially disqualified and blacklisted in August 2021 for three years under Clause 1.10(d) of the NIT (Notice Inviting Tender), which prohibits any modification or withdrawal of bids after submission. The company challenged the order, claiming it was a typographical error and that no modification or malafide intention was involved.

In an earlier round of litigation (CWJC No. 14888 of 2021), the Court had directed NBPDCL to reconsider the matter, observing that the petitioner had not sought to change the price but merely clarified the unit of measurement. Following this, NBPDCL issued a fresh show-cause notice and reaffirmed its blacklisting order in December 2022.

The petitioner returned to Court arguing that:

• The use of “Kg” instead of “MT” was an innocent error.
• The corrected price (if converted) would not make the firm the lowest bidder, hence there was no attempt to manipulate or gain unfair advantage.
• Clause 1.10(d) should not apply as there was no actual modification of the bid.

The Court, however, found that:

• The error was substantial, not typographical, since the unit of price was central to bid evaluation.
• There was no provision in the NIT allowing correction of such errors after bid submission.
• The petitioner did attempt to change the bid after submission, which directly attracted Clause 1.10(d).
• Though the suspension seemed harsh, the clause itself clearly provides a minimum suspension of three years for such infractions.

Accordingly, the Court upheld NBPDCL’s action and dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the blacklisting was legally valid and did not require intervention.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to tender conditions in public procurement processes. Even seemingly minor deviations like incorrect units of measurement can lead to severe consequences, including blacklisting. For government departments, it reinforces their authority to enforce tender terms strictly. For private contractors, it serves as a cautionary precedent about the risks of non-compliance and the limited judicial relief available once penal provisions are triggered.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether quoting prices in a different unit than prescribed amounts to modification of bid under Clause 1.10(d)?
  • Yes. The Court held that quoting in Kg instead of MT was not a mere typographical error but a material change that invited Clause 1.10(d).
• Was the penalty of blacklisting for three years disproportionate or harsh?
  • No. The Court noted that the clause provides for a minimum of three years and the petitioner did not challenge the clause itself.
• Could the petitioner’s clarification be treated as a correction or explanation?
  • No. The Court ruled that after bid submission, no changes are permissible. The clarification attempted by the petitioner amounted to a modification.
• Did the NBPDCL fail to comply with earlier High Court directions?
  • No. The Court found that NBPDCL had re-evaluated the matter and issued a reasoned decision.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• CWJC No. 2991 of 2019 — Aarpee Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
• Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Case Title

M/s Balaji Enterprises vs. North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 810 of 2023

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

For the Petitioner(s):

• Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate
• Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate
• Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate

For the Respondent(s):

• Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate
• Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate
• Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/b078afef-ea34-437c-99e0-3ed150911b27.pdf&search=Debarment

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.