Bhartiya Caterers And Enterprises vs. State Bank Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises, participated in a tender process initiated by Respondent No. 1 (State Bank of India's training institute) for catering services. The tender notice was issued on January 10, 2026, and the portal opened on May 21, 2026. The base price was Rs. 140/- per person per day. The petitioner quoted Rs. 140.01 and indicated that the GST component would be borne by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2's quotation was accepted, while the petitioner's was rejected. The petitioner had previously supplied catering services from November 2, 2025, to June 3, 2026, with an alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 11,28,236/-. The petitioner submitted a representation on June 2, 2026, clarifying his understanding of GST and offering to supply at an earlier rate of Rs. 109/- per plate, but no decision was taken. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his quotation and the tender process itself.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, having participated in the tender process based on the published conditions, could not later seek to alter his bid or reopen the tender due to a misunderstanding regarding GST. The Court found that the petitioner's appropriate course of action was to seek clarification from the tendering authority before submitting his bid. The subsequent representation offering a lower rate did not create an enforceable right to reopen the tender process or claim continuation of the earlier contract. The Court also held that the alleged outstanding dues from the previous contract did not invalidate the subsequent tender process or create a right for the petitioner to be awarded the fresh contract. The delay in the tender process and the absence of a specific time limit, without further material demonstrating prejudice or favoritism, did not establish arbitrariness. Previous engagement as a contractor does not confer a vested right for continuation. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the decision-making process was arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, discriminatory, or contrary to the tender conditions, and thus, no interference under Article 226 was warranted. The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was permitted to pursue his claim for outstanding dues independently.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's quotation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the tender conditions, specifically concerning the ambiguity of the base price (Rs. 140/-) being inclusive or exclusive of GST, and whether the petitioner's interpretation and subsequent representation should have been considered? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of tender conditions and principles of fairness in public procurement). Petitioner's arguments: The tender document lacked clarity on whether the base price included GST, leading to a good-faith misunderstanding. The petitioner's rejection was arbitrary, especially since he was eligible and experienced. His representation offering a lower rate and clarification should have been considered. The delay in opening the tender portal (five months) and the absence of a specific time limit rendered the process arbitrary. The outstanding dues from a previous contract should have been settled before a new tender. Respondent's arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondent as none were present.