CWP No.13268 of IN THE H CJ DARCL Lo Ve Food Corporat 1. The date w 2. The date w 3. The date w 4. Whether pronounce pronounce 5. The delay judgment, CORAM : HO HO Present : Mr for Ms Mr for LAPITA BANE Pra the Constitution April 22, 2026 directing the w 2026 (Annexure release of the E 268 of 2026 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH CWP NO. CL Logistics Limited Versus poration of India and another date when the judgment is reserved date when the judgment is pronounce date when the judgment is uploaded ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full jud nounced delay, if any of the pronounceme ment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocate, or the respondents. ANERJI, J. Prayer in the present petition filed itution of India, inter-alia, is for settin 2026 (Annexure P-8) and for issuan the withdrawal of the petitioner’s pr nexure P-4). Furthermore, the petition f the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) JAB AND HARYANA AT NO.13268 OF 2026 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents 01.05.2026 ounced 14.05.2026 aded 15.05.2026 the judgment is ll judgment is Full ncement of full Not applicable DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI n filed under Articles 226/227 of setting aside of the decision dated issuance of a writ of mandamus price bid dated February 23, etitioner company has prayed for EMD) amount of Rs. 13,67,780/- SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of along with inter the date of actua 2. The i) The providing logist ii) The a Notice Invitin Handling and T Moonak Centre. iii) The No.GEM/2026/B was done on M technically respo iv) On petitioner was percentage offe was fixed at Rs financial bid the of the responden v) The Rs.4,34,92,350/ to be 1. It is the 2.29 times cons mistake by a Cle offered at 1.29 t 268 of 2026 (O&M) interest @ 12% per annum with eff f actual payment. The brief facts of the case are as fol The petitioner is a company en logistics and transportation to various The respondent No.1- Food Corpo nviting Tender (NIT) dated February and Transport Contractor (HTC) for a entre. The petitioner participated in the /2026/B/7177761 as a general bidde on March 27, 2026 whereby the petit y responsive. On March 30, 2026, the financial was declared to be the top bidde e offered vis-à-vis the base value. T at Rs.3,37,15,000/- and the tenderer the offered percentage qua the bas pondents. The petitioner gave a financia 2,350/- i.e. 1.29 times of the base valu t is the petitioner’s case that it intende s considering the base value as 1. How Clerk working at the petitioner com 1.29 times the base value instead of 2. Page 2 of 9 ith effect from April 10, 2026 till e as follows: engaged in the business of arious organisations. Corporation of India (FCI) issued ruary 02, 2026 for appointment of ) for a period of two years at FCI, n the bidding process for Tender bidder. The technical evaluation e petitioner’s bid was found to be ancial bids were opened and the bidder (L-1) by calculating the The base value for the tender derer was required to quote in its the base value, in the GEM portal nancial bid of the amount of e value after considering the same intended to give a financial bid of 1. However, due to an inadvertent company, the financial bid was d of 2.29 times the base value. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of vi) Aft accepted the fin to withdraw its 2026. vii) The vide impugned authority refuse While accepting it intimated to t could not be co accepted terms a viii) Cha the petitioner ha Articles 226/227 3. Mr petitioner subm inadvertent. Inst 1.29 times to th (1.29+1=2.29) company, mult Therefore, the times of the b petitioner comp FCI and this is which it should 268 of 2026 (O&M) After opening of the financial bid the financial bid of the petitioner. The its bid and submitted a representatio The respondents decided the repr ugned order/decision dated April 22 refused to alter the bid made by the epting the bid of the petitioner compan ed to the petitioner that the financial b be corrected or altered after submiss terms and conditions of the tender. Challenging the aforesaid order/de ner has approached this Court by filin 26/227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Goel, learned Advocate ap submits that the mistake in the fin nt. Instead of taking the base value at R s to the base value to make the bid 2.29), one Narinder Sharma, an e multiplied 1.29 times to the base , the petitioner inadvertently submit the base value instead of 2.29 tim company has in the past entered into his is the first time such an inadverte ould not be penalised. Page 3 of 9 l bids on March 30, 2026, the FCI hereafter, the petitioner sought entation to that effect on April 10, e representation of the petitioner ril 22, 2026 and the competent by the petitioner in GEM portal. ompany for a period of two years, ncial bid offered by the petitioner ubmission of the same, as per the der/decision dated April 22, 2026 by filing the instant petition under te appearing on behalf of the the financial bid was completely lue at Rs.3,37,15,000/- and adding 2.29 times of the base value an employee of the petitioner base value i.e 1.29 x 1=1.29. ubmitted a financial bid of 1.29 9 times of the base value. The ed into several contracts with the dvertent mistake has occurred for SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of 4. In the writ petition S. No. Tender w 1 Base Val 2 Bid subm base valu 3 Actual B to be quo 4 GEM po by the pe 5 L-2 bidd 6 Quoted r bidder 5. Rel quoted a price petitioner’s rate base value, the There were tw Rs.7,72,07,350/ reasonable estim the base value the work in t imagination can a sum of Rs.4,3 record and the petitioner comp was an unrealis 22, 2026. 268 of 2026 (O&M) In support of his contention, he re etition, which is reproduced hereinafte nder working se Value as per Tender (1) d submitted by mistake 1.29 times se value (1x 1.29) tual Bid Rate of the Petitioner intend be quoted (1+1.29 = 2.29) M portal actual quoted rate by mista the petitioner (1.29 times of base valu 2 bidder rate oted rate difference between L1 and Relying on the Chart, the learned c price of Rs.6,43,95,650/- which is s ’s rate. Had the petitioner’s rate been e, the quoted price would have am ere two other bidders whose quot 7,350/- which indicated that 2.29 tim e estimate for performance of the wor value was absurdly low and no reaso in the afore-quoted price. There on can it be held that the petitioner off 4,34,92,350/-. The mistake was a d the writ Court should grant discretio company by holding that the bid of 1 nrealistic one and by setting aside the he relied on a Chart at para 9 of einafter: Amount (in Rs.) Ref. 3,37,15,000 (1) times of 4,34,92,350 (II) intended 7,72,07,350 (1+II) mistake e value) 4,34,92,350 (II) 6,43,95,650 (III) 1 and L2 2,09,03,300 (II-III) rned counsel submits that the L-2 h is significantly higher than the en taken as 2.29 times of the ve amounted to Rs.7,72,07,350/-. quoted price was more than 29 times of the base value was a he work. The bid of 1.29 times of reasonable person could perform Therefore, under no stretch of ner offered to do the said work for was apparent on the face of the iscretionary relief in favour of the id of 1.29 times of the base value ide the order/decision dated April SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of 6. Mr “Omsairam Ste Geology, BBSR on the principle the Court and if same should be 7. The Infrastructures (2025) 6 SCC unrealistic, equi 8. Ms respondents sub 22, 2026 where favour of the pe the petitioner on accept the same tender. 9. It i Model Tender F the bidder to submission of t tender, was gr conditions befor is a self declara 268 of 2026 (O&M) Mr. Goel relies on the judgme Steels and Alloys Private Limited BSR and others” reported in (2024 inciple of proportionality a balancing d if onerous penalties are found to be set-aside by the Court. The next judgment relied upon ures Private Limited v. Union of In CC 813, to submit that where th c, equitable relief must be granted to th Ms. Bansal, learned Advocate a ts submits that there was no infirmity whereby respondent No.1-FCI decid the petitioner company relying on the ner on the GEM portal. In the event e same it had to face the consequenc It is brought to this Court’s notic nder Form (MTF) provides that no o r to alter, modify or withdraw an n of the tender. Sufficient time i.e 2 as granted to the bidder/petitioner s before submission of its bid. The bid declaratory and a conscious act and n udgment of Supreme Court in mited v. Director of Mines and 2024) 9 SCC 697 to submit that ncing test has to be conducted by und to be imposed on a party, the upon by Mr. Goel is “ABCI of India and others” reported in ere the mistake in bid/figure is d to the bidder. cate appearing on behalf of the firmity in the decision dated April decided to award the contract in on the financial bid submitted by event the petitioner chose not to uences as per the terms of the s notice that Clause 8 (1) of the t no opportunity shall be given to aw an offer at any stage after i.e 21 days after opening of the itioner to understand the tender he bidding process on GEM portal and no alteration of the offer by SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of revision of rate tendering proces 10. Thi perused the mat 11. Ad relationship wi providing logist not lost upon th aware of the process of the F upon the petitio before making and cons of its while tendering March 30, 2026 tried to wriggle project a case quote 2.29 times 12. At of the MTF whi “C tha wit ten Cla exp or any 268 of 2026 (O&M) f rates could be allowed since it would process. This Court has heard learned co e material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was with the respondents-FCI for se logistics and transportation services pon the mind of this court that the p the mandatory conditions of the M f the FCI. Being a seasoned commerc petitioner to minutely peruse the te aking a business decision. The petitio of its financial bid quoted a rate of 1 dering its financial bid. After openin , 2026 when it realised that L-2 quo iggle out of the terms and condition case that instead of 1.29 times of the b 9 times of the base value. At this juncture, it is necessary to re F which are reproduced hereinafter: “Clause 8(1) “It should be clearly that no opportunity shall be given with-draw any offer at any stag tender.” Clause 6(i) "the Tenderer shall b express condition that in case he r or terms & conditions thereof, afte any reason whatsoever during the t t would tantamount to vitiating the ned counsel for the parties and as associated in a business for several years and has been rvices to the FCI. Therefore, it is the petitioner company was well the MTF and the usual bidding mmercial entity it was incumbent the terms of the bid documents petitioner after weighing the pros te of 1.29 times of the base value opening of the financial bids on 2 quoted a much higher price, it nditions of the NIT by seeking to f the base value it had intended to ry to rely on Clauses 8 (1) and 6(i) arly understood by the Tenderer iven to them to alter, modify or stage after submission of the all be permitted to bid on the he resiles, or modifies his offer, , after submitting his tender, for the tender process, or any of the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of info fals forf the wil acc EM Ten 13. Fro emerges that no withdraw any of the tenderer was it resiles or see earnest money d 14. The stage. 15. The distinguishable process for a m period the bidde 0.05% every ti stipulated floor minimum marg attempt. Instead on the online po as 140.10% gi appellant made within four minu 268 of 2026 (O&M) information furnished by him/her false, the Earnest Money Depo forfeited, without prejudice to any the Corporation under the Contrac will be liable for any loss suffer account of its withdrawal/modificat EMD. He will also be debarred fro Tender Enquiry with FCI for a peri From a perusal of the above sai hat no opportunity would be given to any offer, at any stage, after submissi rer was only permitted to bid on the ex or seeks to modify its offer after su oney deposited by him would stand fo The cases relied on by Mr. Goel The facts of Omsairam case hable from the facts of the present ca or a mining contract lasted for almo e bidders went on enhancing their bid ery time. In 136th attempt, the ma floor price and the appellant intend margin of 0.05% which would amou nstead, in 137th attempt, it inadvertentl line portal. The e-auction was conclud 0% given by the appellant. Having made frantic phone calls and also sent r minutes of giving the said bid. Page 7 of 9 /her is found to be incorrect or eposited by him shall stand any other rights and remedies of tract and Law, and the Tenderer ffered by the Corporation on ification etc. besides forfeiture of d from participating in any other period of two years." ve said clauses, it unequivocally ven to a bidder to alter, modify or bmission of the bids. Furthermore, the express condition that in case fter submission of its tender, the and forfeited. Goel merits a discussion at this case (supra) are completely sent case. In that case the auction r almost seven hours and in that eir bids by a minimum margin of he margin was 104.05% of the intended to increase the bid by a amount to 104.10% in the 137th ertently made an offer of 140.10% ncluded with the last bid recorded Having realised its mistake, the so sent an e-mail to the respondent SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of 16. In t under Article 14 of the entire Rs.3,00,00,000/ failure to act wi of delaying the participants’ pre 17. In t after realising th sought to with respondents-FC 18. In was that whethe bid of Rs.1569 w of the project w was unintention more than 1500 instead of Rs.15 appellant’s orig crores upon pay have no manne petitioner’s case 19. Up field, this Cour filing the presen 268 of 2026 (O&M) In that context, the Hon’ble Apex icle 142 of the Constitution of India, entire security deposit of Rs.9,1 0,000/- is to be paid by the appellant o act with the required degree of care w g the mining project but had also cos ts’ precious time, effort and money. In the present case only after openi ising that L-2 had made a substantial withdraw its financial bid which FCI. Thereafter, the petitioner appr In ABCI’s case (supra), short ques hether the respondent was justified in .1569 which on the face of it was absu ject was Rs.1504.64 crores. The Apex tentional and obvious as for the estim n 1500 crores, the appellant intende s.1569/- only. Therefore, it directed s original bank guarantee/demand dr on payment of Rs.1 crore to it. The fa manner of application to the present ’s case in anyway. Upon perusal of the clauses of the Court has no hesitation to hold that present writ petition is only seeking Apex Court in exercise of powers ndia, held that instead of forfeiture Rs.9,12,21,315/-, a penalty of llant on account of the appellant’s care which not only had the effect lso cost the respondents and other r opening of the financial bids and tantially higher bid, the petitioner which was not allowed by the approached this Court. rt question before the Apex Court fied in choosing and accepting the absurd, where the estimated cost Apex Court held that the mistake e estimated value of a contract of ntended to quote Rs.1569 crores rected the respondent to return the and draft to the tune of Rs.15.04 he facts of ABCI’s case (supra) nt case and does not aid the of the MTF and the law governing ld that the petitioner company by king refund of its security deposit SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13268 of dehors the term the same and th without any ord 20. Con accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB JUDGE MAY 14, 2026 Shalini Whether speakin Whether reporta 268 of 2026 (O&M) e terms of the NIT. Accordingly, it ho and the writ petition being CWP No. ny order as to costs. Connected application(s), if any, s SIBAL) (LA DGE 6 speaking/reasoned: Ye reportable: Ye it holds that there is no merit in P No.13268 of 2026 is dismissed, any, shall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document