Accepted tender rates must reflect actual deployment and cannot be retrospectively construed as lump-sum.

The Collector and District Election Officer, Balaghat invited tenders for supplying and installing projectors for Assembly Election 2013 training and counting.

The petitioner’s tender was accepted on 16 October 2013, with rates listed by location and the acceptance letter referring to the entire training period.

After the work, the petitioner claimed payment based on the projectors supplied and the days of deployment.

The Collector’s office made only a partial payment and later rejected the petitioner’s representation, treating the accepted rates as applicable to each training centre for the entire training period rather than as daily rates.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed the Collector to decide the representation by a speaking order.

The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection and seeking the outstanding amount with interest.

1. Whether the accepted tender rates were payable as a lump sum for each training centre for the entire training period, or were to be applied to the actual number of projectors deployed and days of deployment.

2. Whether the Collector’s rejection of the petitioner’s payment claim was arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the Collector’s decision.

It applied the principles that contractual terms must be construed from the tender and acceptance documents read as a whole, and that the parties’ contemporaneous records and manner of performance may clarify the basis on which the work was understood and performed.

A public authority cannot retrospectively alter the basis of payment after performance where that approach conflicts with its own earlier records; such inconsistent treatment may be arbitrary.

The acceptance letter stated that the accepted rates applied for the entire training period, but did not say that payment was a single lump sum per centre or that the number of projectors and deployment days were irrelevant.

The Collector’s work details identified the locations, projector numbers and deployment periods, while the departmental note-sheet recorded an aggregate of 210 projector-days and proposed payment by reference to projector-days.

Read together, those records showed that the work had been quantified on the basis of actual projector deployment.

The Collector therefore could not later treat the accepted rates as a lump sum for each centre; the contrary decision was inconsistent with the department’s earlier determination and was arbitrary.

It directed the Collector and District Election Officer, Balaghat, to determine and release the balance payable by applying the rates accepted on 16 October 2013 to the recorded total of 210 projector-days, within one month after production of a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.