Summary
The Supreme Court restored HPCL’s tender award after rejecting a competing bidder’s claim that the successful bidder concealed blacklisting proceedings and submitted a doubtful ISO certificate. The required declarations concerned actual blacklisting, banning or holiday listing; a later blacklisting order did not retrospectively falsify the bid. Disputed certificate authenticity could not be resolved through a miniature trial in writ proceedings. The tender author’s considered interpretation deserved deference absent mala fides or perversity.
Issues
- Whether the declarations required disclosure of the earlier show-cause notice.
- Whether subsequent blacklisting invalidated the earlier bid.
- Whether disputed ISO certification justified writ interference.
Held
- The declaration formats concerned actual blacklisting, banning or holiday listing. The earlier notice asked why blacklisting proceedings should not be initiated; it did not establish the disqualifying status or a false declaration when the bid was submitted. (¶ 20–28)
- The subsequent blacklisting could not be given automatic retrospective effect against the existing tender. HPCL’s applicable guidelines addressed future dealings. (¶ 27–28)
- Competing affidavits about ISO certification raised factual disputes requiring evidence and cross-examination. HPCL had accepted the certificate, while retaining the ability to inquire if it entertained doubts; writ proceedings were unsuitable for a miniature trial. (¶ 29–33)
- Courts should defer to the tender author’s reasonable understanding unless mala fides or perversity is shown. A rival bidder cannot impose its preferred interpretation. Terms may be implied only where strictly necessary for business efficacy, not merely to improve a commercial bargain. (¶ 36–43)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court order was set aside and the competing bidder’s writ petition dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.