Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 11 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Chhattisgarh Medical Service Corporation Ltd (a state‑run medical services corporation). Respondents – Natwar Lal Agrawal & Ors. The dispute arose from a tender for a contract where the 1st respondent (Natwar Lal Agrawal) claimed to be the lowest bidder.
  • Background: The tender required bidders to submit phone number and email‑id as per Clause 6 of the tender conditions. The 1st respondent’s bid was 9.9% below the estimated cost, while the 3rd respondent’s bid was 9.22% below. Despite being the lowest bidder, the 1st respondent was excluded, and the contract was awarded to the 3rd respondent.
  • High Court Findings (05‑02‑2026): The High Court found the corporation’s explanation for rejecting the 1st respondent’s bid unsatisfactory, but did not interfere with the award of the contract. It imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the 1st respondent, deeming the rejection procedurally flawed.
  • Supreme Court Arguments: Senior Counsel Anil Kaushik for the corporation argued that the 1st respondent’s bid was technically non‑responsive because the respondent failed to submit a clarification despite a communication sent to the email‑id disclosed in the bid documents. The corporation contended that the email address used for the clarification was the one provided by the bidder in Annexure A2, complying with Clause 6.
  • Key Evidence: Annexure 1 of the tender documents confirms Clause 6: “Bidder must submit their phone no. and Email‑id along with details address of correspondence.” The corporation sent two communications to the email‑id furnished by the 1st respondent, warning that failure to respond would render the bid non‑responsive.
  • Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the corporation acted within the tender’s stipulated procedure. The High Court erred in concluding that the email address used was not disclosed by the petitioner for bid submission. Consequently, there was no procedural error warranting the cost award.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, specifically deleting the Rs 1 lakh cost imposed on the 1st respondent.
  • The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of with the above directions, and any pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Topics: Tender Procurement, Judicial Review