Bidder Cannot Withdraw ‘Mistaken’ Financial Bid After Seeing Competitors’ Rates: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Strict Tender Conditions in FCI Contract Case

Case Name: CJ DARCL Logistics Limited v. Food Corporation of India and Another

Date of Judgment: 14 May 2026

Citation: CWP-13268-2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a seasoned commercial entity participating in a public tender cannot seek withdrawal or alteration of its financial bid after opening of bids merely by pleading an “inadvertent clerical mistake,” especially when the tender conditions expressly prohibit modification or withdrawal of bids after submission. The Court ruled that permitting such post-bid alterations would vitiate the sanctity and certainty of the tender process. Accordingly, the Court refused to interfere with the Food Corporation of India’s decision rejecting the bidder’s request to withdraw its financial bid and refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).

Summary: The petitioner company, engaged in logistics and transportation services, participated in a tender floated by the Food Corporation of India for appointment of a Handling and Transport Contractor at FCI Moonak Centre for a period of two years. After technical evaluation, the petitioner was declared technically responsive and subsequently emerged as the L-1 bidder upon opening of financial bids on 30.03.2026.

The dispute arose because the petitioner later claimed that while submitting the bid on the GEM portal, its employee had committed an inadvertent clerical error. According to the petitioner, instead of quoting 2.29 times the base value, the employee mistakenly quoted only 1.29 times the base value. The petitioner contended that the quoted amount of ₹4.34 crores was commercially unrealistic and that no reasonable contractor could execute the work at such a low rate. It was further argued that the substantially higher bids submitted by other participants clearly demonstrated the existence of an obvious error.

The petitioner relied upon a chart reproduced in the judgment demonstrating that the intended bid amount should allegedly have been ₹7.72 crores instead of ₹4.34 crores and sought withdrawal of the bid together with refund of the EMD amount of ₹13,67,780/-.

Opposing the petition, FCI contended that the tender conditions unequivocally prohibited alteration, modification, or withdrawal of bids after submission. Reliance was placed upon Clause 8(1) and Clause 6(i) of the Model Tender Form which specifically provided that any bidder attempting to modify or withdraw its offer after submission would be liable to forfeiture of EMD and other contractual consequences.

Justice Lapita Banerji, speaking for the Division Bench, observed that the petitioner was not a novice participant but a seasoned commercial entity having long-standing business dealings with FCI. The Court held that such an experienced bidder was expected to carefully scrutinize the bid documents and consciously evaluate commercial implications before submitting a financial bid.

The High Court further noted that the petitioner sought withdrawal only after discovering that the L-2 bidder had quoted a substantially higher price. According to the Court, the petitioner was effectively attempting to wriggle out of a commercially disadvantageous bid after participating in the tender process with full awareness of the applicable conditions.

The Court extensively distinguished the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the petitioner. In Omsairam Steels and Alloys Private Limited v. Director of Mines and Geology, BBSR, the mistake had occurred during a live e-auction involving rapidly escalating bids and immediate corrective communication was made within minutes. Similarly, in ABCI Infrastructures Private Limited v. Union of India, the error was glaring on the face of the record because the bidder had mistakenly quoted ₹1569 instead of ₹1569 crores in a project valued above ₹1500 crores. The High Court held that the facts of the present case were entirely different and did not warrant equitable interference.

Emphasizing the importance of certainty and sanctity in public procurement processes, the Court concluded that permitting bidders to revise or withdraw bids after opening of financial bids would undermine the integrity of tender procedures and create uncertainty in commercial dealings.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld FCI’s refusal to permit withdrawal or modification of the petitioner’s financial bid and declined refund of the Earnest Money Deposit.