Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a private firm challenging its three-year blacklisting by the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (NBPDCL). The case arose from a tender for the supply of DPC aluminum winding wire, where the petitioner submitted its price bid in kilograms (Kg) instead of the required metric tons (MT).
The tender document (NIT No. 14/PR/NBPDCL/2021) clearly required bidders to quote prices per metric ton. The petitioner, however, quoted prices per kilogram. This created a significant deviation from the prescribed format. When the petitioner realized the mistake, it wrote to NBPDCL on 23 July 2021, requesting that its price be considered in Kg terms. Later, it suggested converting the quoted price into metric tons (300.31 × 1000 = ₹3,00,310 per MT).
NBPDCL treated this as a modification of the bid after submission — a violation of Clause 1.10(d) of the NIT — and blacklisted the petitioner for three years from participating in any future NBPDCL tenders. Clause 1.10(d) specifically states that withdrawal or modification of a bid during its validity period will lead to suspension of the bidder for 3–5 years.
The petitioner had previously challenged the blacklisting in CWJC No. 14888 of 2021, where the High Court set aside the first blacklisting order and directed NBPDCL to reconsider the case after hearing the petitioner. NBPDCL again issued a show-cause notice (11 October 2022), received a reply (19 October 2022), and on 26 December 2022 reimposed the same penalty.
The petitioner argued that the mistake was a typographical error and not intentional, that conversion to MT would still not make them the lowest bidder, and that the NBPDCL should have merely rejected the bid instead of imposing blacklisting. Reliance was placed on earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings involving minor errors in tenders.
The NBPDCL maintained that the error was not minor but a serious deviation from the required format. Price per kilogram instead of per metric ton, they argued, was a substantive change and not a curable typographical mistake. There was no provision in the tender allowing such conversion.
The High Court, after examining the case, held:
- Quoting in kilograms instead of metric tons was a material change, not a typographical slip.
- Asking to convert the price into metric tons amounted to a “modification” of the bid, which directly attracted Clause 1.10(d).
- The clause prescribes a minimum suspension of three years; the Court cannot reduce it.
- Previous cases cited by the petitioner were factually different and did not help in this case.
- Even if the NBPDCL’s observation about mala fide intention was unsupported by evidence, the fact remained that the petitioner had violated the tender condition.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding NBPDCL’s decision to blacklist the petitioner for three years.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is a reminder that public procurement rules must be strictly followed. Courts will not treat deviations from essential tender terms lightly, especially when they involve pricing formats that affect bid evaluation.
For contractors and suppliers, the case highlights that:
- Any post-submission clarification that alters a bid’s terms may be treated as a modification, triggering penalty clauses.
- Tender instructions, especially regarding units, quantities, and pricing formats, must be followed with precision.
- Courts are reluctant to reduce blacklisting periods where the tender clause prescribes a minimum duration.
For government departments, the judgment reinforces the importance of transparent, rule-bound tender processes and their enforceability, while also reminding authorities to avoid unsupported allegations about bidders’ intentions.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Issue 1: Whether quoting price in Kg instead of MT was a minor, curable typographical error.
Decision: No. The Court held it was a substantive deviation, not a typographical slip. - Issue 2: Whether converting Kg price into MT after submission amounted to modification of the bid.
Decision: Yes. The Court said this fell squarely within “modification” under Clause 1.10(d). - Issue 3: Whether the blacklisting period could be reduced.
Decision: No. Clause 1.10(d) prescribes a minimum suspension of three years, which the Court cannot alter. - Issue 4: Whether earlier judgments on typographical errors applied.
Decision: No. The cited cases involved different facts and lacked a similar penalty clause.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- CWJC No. 2991 of 2019, Aarpee Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Patna High Court)
- Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Case Title
M/s Balaji Enterprises vs. North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 810 of 2023
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate; Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate; Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate; Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/b078afef-ea34-437c-99e0-3ed150911b27.pdf&search=Debarment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
