Municipal Tender Listing Private Property as Project Site for Public Utility is Inherent Defect Warranting Quashment

The petitioners, claiming recorded ownership of the property at 59 Palm Avenue, Kolkata, challenged a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated December 23, 2025, issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC).

The NIT proposed the construction of a public toilet-cum-urinal specifically at the petitioners' private address.

The KMC filed reports stating the land was within a road alignment and that the address was mentioned "symbolically" because the local MLA's fund narration used that specific address.

During proceedings, KMC admitted the address belonged to a private individual and issued a corrigendum in May 2026 to clarify the work was on a 40-feet wide road rather than the private property.

1. Whether a municipal corporation can validly issue a tender for public utility construction by identifying the private property of an individual as the site of work.

2. Whether a post-tender corrigendum can rectify an inherent defect in the description of the work site in an NIT.

The Court applied the principle of administrative propriety and the doctrine of "inherent defect" in tender processes.

A public authority cannot publish a tender identifying private property for constructing public utilities without express permission.

Transparency in the tendering process requires accurate identification of the work site to ensure fair participation by bidders, and "symbolic" identification of private addresses is legally impermissible.

The Court rejected the KMC’s contention that the address was merely "symbolic," reasoning that since the tender specifically identified a private property (59 Palm Avenue), it was fundamentally flawed as the municipality cannot carry out development on private land without consent.

The Court observed that a corrigendum issued months after the NIT could not "regularize" the inherent defect, as the original description might have influenced or misled potential tenderers who participated based on the published specifications.

Regardless of the KMC’s claim that actual construction was occurring outside the boundary, the specific identification of the petitioners' property in the legal tender document created a complication that could not be cured by a mere clarification.

The Court quashed the Notice Inviting Tender and all consequential actions, while clarifying that this order does not prevent the municipality from carrying out development work in the future, provided it follows proper legal procedures and correct site identification.