Bidder’s Unilateral Inclusion of GST in Violation of Tender Terms Cannot Vitiate Financial Evaluation Under Judicial Review.

The Petitioner, FGM Private Limited, participated in a two-cover tender process initiated by Respondent No. 2 (KSMCL) for drilling and ore rehandling works at the Thimmappanagundi Iron Ore Mine

Clause 11.4 of the tender document explicitly stated that the quoted price must include all taxes and levies "excluding GST"

The Petitioner submitted its financial bid through the e-procurement portal and, citing the portal's requirement to select a GST rate, chose 18%, resulting in a bid inclusive of GST

Respondent No. 3 submitted a bid exclusive of GST, as per the tender terms

Respondent No. 2 evaluated the bids as submitted, treating the Petitioner's higher GST-inclusive quote as the final offer, leading to the award of the contract to Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner challenged this, seeking a declaration to treat its bid as GST-exclusive for a "like-to-like" comparison

1. Whether the financial evaluation was arbitrary because the Petitioner’s bid was treated as GST-inclusive while the competitor’s was treated as GST-exclusive

2. Whether the technical functionality of the e-procurement portal overrides express terms and conditions stipulated in the tender document

3. Whether a bidder's unilateral mistake or misconception regarding clear tender conditions warrants judicial interference under Article 226

The primary rule is that the terms of the tender constitute the "rules of the game" and bind all participants equally to ensure transparency and uniformity

The Court applied the principles of administrative law governing public procurement and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the principle that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process—checking for arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural impropriety—rather than the merits of a commercial decision

furthermore, the court applied the doctrine that in cases of ambiguity, a bidder must seek clarification during pre-bid stages; otherwise, the plain meaning of the contract terms prevails

The Court observed that Clause 11.4 was "plain, explicit and admits of only one interpretation," which was that bids must be GST-exclusive

It rejected the Petitioner's argument regarding the e-procurement portal's GST option, holding that a portal’s design cannot override or dilute express tender stipulations

The Court noted that Respondent No. 3's compliance proved the clause was unambiguous

It reasoned that the Petitioner had the opportunity to seek clarification but failed to do so, proceeding instead on a subjective understanding that led to an error

The Court clarified that it cannot rewrite a bid or recalculate prices to correct a bidder’s mistake, as such interference would destroy commercial certainty and transparency in public procurement

No evidence of mala fides or bias was found in the actions of the tendering authority

The bid of Respondent No. 3 was validly accepted. The Court held that a bidder’s bona fide misconception does not furnish a ground for setting aside a work order

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit