Facts of the Case

  • Issuance of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT): Respondent No. 2, Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited (KSMCL), issued an NIT calling for competitive bids from eligible contractors for executing works at the Thimmappanagundi Iron Ore Mine (TIOM).
  • Scope and Structure of the Tender: The procurement process was structured under a strict two-cover tender system. It contemplated two distinct components: (i) drilling, excavating iron ore/waste, crushing, and screening (1,99,980 metric tons), and (ii) rehandling of Dump D-1, excavation of ROM, processing, weighing, and hauling to stockyards (4,09,500 metric tons).
  • Submission of Competing Bids: The Petitioner, FGM Private Limited (formerly SS and Comp Private Limited), submitted its financial bid via the designated e-procurement portal on April 4, 2026. Respondent No. 3, Shree Srinivasa Minerals, also submitted its competitive financial bid.
  • The GST Discrepancy: While uploading its bid, the Petitioner interacted with an option on the e-procurement portal requiring the selection of an applicable Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate. The Petitioner selected an 18% GST rate, which automatically aggregated its basic bid amount with the tax component, reflecting an inflated unit rate of ₹561.68 on the portal. Conversely, Respondent No. 3 submitted its bid at a unit rate of ₹468, strictly exclusive of GST.
  • Aggrieved by Contract Award: KSMCL evaluated the financial bids based on the nominal unit values appearing on the portal, leading to the selection of Respondent No. 3 as the lowest bidder ($L1$) and the subsequent issuance of a work order in their favor. The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a declaration to treat its per-unit bid price as ₹476 (excluding GST) for drilling works and ₹199.5 for rehandling works, and to command the award of the contract to them.

Issues Involved

  • Portal Design vs. Tender Framework: Whether the technical design, configuration, or dropdown options available on an electronic procurement portal can override, modify, or dilute the express contractual terms and explicit clauses stipulated within a formal tender document.
  • Parity in Financial Evaluation: Whether the tendering authority committed an act of gross arbitrariness or procedural inequality by comparing a GST-inclusive bid (submitted by the Petitioner) against a GST-exclusive bid (submitted by Respondent No. 3) without normalizing the evaluation on a uniform basis.
  • Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226: Whether the High Court, exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can act as an appellate commercial authority to restructure financial quotations, correct a bidder's unilateral error, or recalculate commercial bids post-opening.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Requirement of Like-to-Like Comparison: The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that for a fair financial evaluation, the respondents were legally bound to establish a level playing field. This required either adding the 18% GST component to Respondent No. 3's bid or deducting the GST component from the Petitioner's bid to facilitate a uniform comparison.
  • Compelled by Portal Functionality: It was contended that the e-procurement portal mandated the selection of a GST rate during the submission flow. The Petitioner merely complied with the portal's system prompts, meaning the resulting unit rate of ₹561.68 was an administrative byproduct of the portal rather than a deliberate, non-compliant quote.
  • Unequal Treatment Vitiating the Process: The Petitioner asserted that evaluating an inclusive price against an exclusive price amounted to unequal treatment of similarly situated bidders, which distorted the financial outcome, rendered the decision-making process arbitrary, and justified setting aside the work order issued to Respondent No. 3. Internal WhatsApp communications were also pointed out to demonstrate their bona fide intent to quote a lower base price.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Unambiguous Tender Conditions: The learned Senior Counsel appearing for KSMCL (Respondent No. 2) drew attention to Clause 14 and Clause 11.4 of the tender document. Clause 11.4 explicitly mandated that all duties, taxes, and levies must be included in the total tender price, excluding GST, since the liability to discharge GST rested squarely upon the employer.
  • Failure to Seek Pre-Bid Clarification: The respondents argued that if the Petitioner encountered a contradiction between the portal's user interface and the text of the tender document, it was legally obligated to utilize pre-bid mechanisms to seek official clarification. Having failed to raise any pre-bid query, the Petitioner could not weaponize its own unilateral misinterpretation to disrupt public procurement.
  • Compliance by the Successful Bidder: Respondent No. 3 successfully navigated the portal while adhering strictly to Clause 11.4 by presenting its financial quote exclusive of GST. The respondents maintained that a bidder's self-created commercial misunderstanding cannot invalidate an otherwise transparent and uniform public evaluation process.

Court Order / Findings

  • Supremacy of the Tender Document: The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, held that the rights, liabilities, and rules governing a public procurement competition are strictly dictated by the formal tender document and not by the software architecture or interface options of an e-procurement portal. Portal tools cannot dilute express tender stipulations.
  • Strict Construction of Clause 11.4: The Court analyzed Clause 11.4 and concluded that the deliberate exclusion of GST from the bid price was explicitly designed to enforce transparency, uniformity, and parity among all competing participants. The language was plain and left no room for alternative interpretations.
  • No Judicial Rewriting of Commercial Bids: The Court ruled that under Article 226, it does not sit as a court of commercial appeal. It is legally impermissible for a constitutional court to recalculate figures, alter financial quotes, or retrospectively correct a bidder's errors.
  • Dismissal of the Writ: Finding no trace of mala fides, bias, procedural impropriety, or favoritism by KSMCL, the Court emphasized that public contracts demand strict commercial certainty. Allowing unsuccessful bidders to alter their bids post-opening due to subjective errors would throw public procurement into chaos. The Writ Petition was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.

Important Clarification

  • Distinction Between Tender Ambiguity and Bidder Error: The Court clarified a critical legal boundary: if a tender condition itself is textually ambiguous, a court may step in to examine if the authority’s interpretation is arbitrary or irrational. However, if the tender text is crystal clear and the error lies entirely in the bidder’s subjective application or misunderstanding of it, the commercial consequences of that error must fall solely upon the bidder.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: (Writ jurisdiction invoked to challenge the administrative and commercial decision-making process of a State instrument).
  • Article 227 of the Constitution of India: (Power of superintendence over subordinate courts/tribunals).
  • Clause 11 (Sub-Clauses 11.1, 11.2, 11.4, 11.5) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT): (Governing framework specifically mandating GST-exclusive financial bid submissions).

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783059958_319compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.