Successful Bidder is Bound by Quoted Amount and Cannot Unilaterally Deem Bid Proportionate to Settlement Period

The Petitioner participated in a tender process initiated by the Zila Parishad, Aurangabad, via a notice dated 29.05.2019 for the collection of tax at the Aurangabad Bus Stand for the remaining portion of the financial year (01.07.2019 to 31.03.2020).

The Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder with an offer of Rs. 46,80,000/-.

However, the Petitioner deposited only Rs. 35,13,576/-, contending that since the contract was for nine months rather than a full year, he was only liable for a proportionate amount.

The Respondents demanded the full bid amount, eventually cancelling the settlement and blacklisting the Petitioner for non-payment and unauthorized tax collection.

1. Whether a successful bidder, having quoted a specific amount for a defined period in a tender notice, can later seek a proportionate reduction of that bid amount on the grounds that the contract duration is less than a year.

2. Whether the actions of the Zila Parishad in demanding the full bid amount and subsequently terminating the settlement were arbitrary or illegal.

The Court applied the principle of Estoppel in Contractual Tenders, which dictates that a party who voluntarily participates in a tender process with full knowledge of its terms and conditions is bound by their financial offer.

Statutory framework of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, particularly Sections 62, 80, and 88, which establish the Zila Parishad as a body corporate with the power to enter into and manage contracts through its Chief Executive Officer.

Reference to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act regarding the recovery of outstanding dues.

The Court reasoned that the tender notice dated 29.05.2019 explicitly invited bids for a specific nine-month window (July 2019 to March 2020).

The Petitioner’s bid of Rs. 46,80,000/- was made specifically in response to this notice; therefore, his subsequent "novel plea" that the bid was intended for a 12-month period was untenable.

The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove the bid was meant for a full year despite being given the opportunity.

The Zila Parishad had shown leniency by offering an installment plan, which the Petitioner failed to honor while simultaneously engaging in the unauthorized collection of taxes without a valid agreement.

Consequently, the Court found the Petitioner’s attempt to unilaterally alter the financial terms after being declared the winner to be a breach of contract.

The Court found no arbitrariness or illegality in the Respondents' demand for the full bid amount or their subsequent cancellation of the settlement; the Petitioner was held liable to fulfill the original bid conditions.