- Case
- S. A. YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER (C/SOUTH) (Bombay High Court, 08-05-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India.
Facts: The Petitioner, a contractor, submitted a bid for a tender issued by the Respondent, Union of India through the Chief Engineer, Central Railway. The tender required bidders to furnish earnest money in the form of a bid security, valid for 90 days beyond the tender's validity period. The Petitioner initially submitted a bank guarantee valid only until July 30, 2025, realizing later that it did not meet the tender conditions. Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted an amended bank guarantee with a validity up to September 30, 2025. The Respondent did not respond.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court, seeking a direction to the Respondent to consider the amended bank guarantee.
Issue: Whether the Respondent can be directed to consider the amended bank guarantee submitted by the Petitioner, despite the initial bank guarantee not conforming to the tender conditions, considering the bids have not yet been opened and no prejudice would be caused.
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed, and the Respondent is directed to consider the amended bank guarantee submitted by the Petitioner.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the amended bank guarantee is considered. The Petitioner acted promptly to correct the mistake upon realizing the discrepancy in the validity period. The Court relied on the principle that equitable relief can be granted to a bidder who has made a material mistake in the bid, provided they act promptly to inform the authorities and seek rectification before a formal contract is entered into, citing the Supreme Court's decision in West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors. The court found the mistake to be bona fide and allowed the petitioner to correct it.
