Facts of the Case

The Government of India floated a tender for construction of the India-Mongolia Friendship Secondary School at Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, with the bid deadline extended several times, finally to 02.05.2023. The petitioners submitted their technical bid, along with the requisite documents and bank guarantee, on 02.05.2023 — but to WAPCOS Limited's office in Gurugram, the originally designated bid-receiving authority. On that very date, a corrigendum (No. 5, further extending the deadline to 12.05.2023) and a further corrigendum (No. 6, among other things changing the bid-receiving authority to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi) were issued and communicated to bidders by email and SMS, and uploaded to the tender website.

The petitioners claimed they were unaware of this change and only realised their bid had gone to the wrong authority when they wrote to the Respondents on 19.05.2023 — a letter in which the petitioners themselves candidly acknowledged an "oversight" in not tracking the corrigendum, and separately flagged (as an aside, in the same letter) that the tender fee shown on the e-portal appeared to be without GST, contrary to the actual bid notice terms.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Respondents' method of communicating the corrigendum (email and SMS, plus website upload) satisfied Clause 8.2 of the tender document, which required amendments to be 'communicated in writing'.
  2. Whether the petitioners' bid, submitted to the wrong (superseded) authority, should nonetheless be considered.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Clause 8.2 of the tender required any addendum to be communicated in writing to all bidders, which the petitioners argued meant formal letters, not mere emails or SMS.
  • Sufficient time was not given for re-submission after the change in bid-receiving authority, and the petitioners stood to suffer irreparable loss having already incurred substantial costs preparing their bid documents and bank guarantee.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Emails and SMS notifications of the corrigendum had in fact been sent to every bidder, including the petitioners, on the same day the corrigendum was issued, and the corrigendum was also uploaded to the tender website — satisfying the 'communication in writing' requirement.
  • The petitioners' own letter dated 19.05.2023 admitted an oversight on their part in not tracking the corrigendum.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that Clause 8.2's requirement of communication 'in writing' was satisfied by the email and SMS notifications sent to the petitioners on 02.05.2023, supported by screenshots of the government e-procurement system's mail summary report.
  • Applying settled Supreme Court principles on judicial restraint in tender matters (Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa; Silppi Constructions v. Union of India; N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain), the Court held that courts should not interfere with tender decisions absent arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality.
  • Noting the petitioners' own letter had admitted an oversight in not responding to the corrigendum, the Court held they could not take advantage of their own lapse to challenge the entire tender process.
  • Finding no infirmity in the tender process, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Important Clarification

The GST reference here is a passing remark in the petitioners' own correspondence about the tender fee shown on the e-portal — it was not an issue raised for adjudication, argued, or decided by the Court. The ruling is entirely about tender-communication requirements and the limited scope of judicial review over public procurement decisions.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
  • General public-procurement principles — no specific GST-law provision was adjudicated

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of against the petitioners — the writ petition challenging the tender process was dismissed.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) 8031/2023 & CM APPLs. 30861-62/2023
  • Coram: Chief Justice (then presiding) and Justice Subramonium Prasad
  • Date of Judgment: 03.07.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.