Court partially allows appeal on bid document corrections, parties bear own costs. Emphasizes tender rule adherence for integrity.

The court upheld the decision to quash the appellant's communication correcting bid documents but set aside the direction allowing corrections. The appeal was partially allowed, with parties bearing their own costs. The court emphasized adherence to tender rules for integrity, fairness, and public confidence, suggesting negotiation with the next lowest bidder for an economically viable bid.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the corrections made by the appellant in the bid documents of respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Entitlement of respondent Nos.1 to 4 to seek correction in their bid documents under ITB or in equity.
3. Scope of judicial review in administrative actions related to tender processes.
4. Public interest considerations in awarding contracts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Corrections Made by the Appellant:
The appellant corrected the bid documents of respondent Nos.1 to 4, identifying arithmetic errors as per Clause 29 of the Instructions To Bidders (ITB). The corrections and subsequent evaluation were communicated on December 18, 1999. The High Court found these corrections unsustainable, noting that the errors were beyond the scope of Clause 29.1, which only allows correction of arithmetic errors, not changes to the unit rate.

2. Entitlement to Seek Correction:
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 argued that the errors were due to a systematic computer failure and were clerical, not arithmetic. They sought correction under the ITB and in equity, emphasizing that their bid was the lowest. However, the court held that the mistakes, even if unintentional, were not beyond the control of the respondents and could have been avoided with due diligence. The court further noted that permitting such corrections would violate Clauses 24.1, 24.3, and 29.1 of the ITB, which do not allow for post-submission modifications.

3. Scope of Judicial Review:
The court referenced the principles from Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, emphasizing judicial restraint in administrative actions and the importance of not substituting administrative decisions with judicial ones. The court found that the High Court's direction to allow corrections in the bid documents exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review.

4. Public Interest Considerations:
While the bid of respondent Nos.1 to 4 was the lowest, the court stressed the importance of adhering to the ITB rules to maintain the integrity and fairness of the tender process. It was noted that relaxing the rules for one bidder could lead to discrimination and arbitrariness, undermining public confidence in the process. The court clarified that the appellant could negotiate with the next lowest bidder for an economically viable bid.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the appellant's communication dated December 18, 1999, but set aside the direction to permit corrections in the bid documents of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The appeal was allowed in part, with each party bearing its own costs.

---