Changing tender conditions through corrigendum okay: HC

"Change in the tender by way of an impugned corrigendum does not amount to changing the rules of the game after the game commenced"

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has held that changing of tender conditions by issuing a corrigendum is permissible in law. It dismissed a petition by a company that had lost out the tender as the new condition was issued though the corrigendum disqualified it.

“The change in the tender condition by way of an impugned corrigendum does not amount to changing the rules of the game after the game had commenced. It was a permissible exercise of power in law. Merely because the petitioner is non-suited by way of the said corrigendum and is moved out of the race, would not make the corrigendum illegal,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his judgment dismissing a petition filed by one Rajath R, proprietor of RR Enterprises. Rajath’s petition was against the Health and Family Welfare Department. A notice inviting tender was issued on March 31, 2022.

On April 8, 2022, a corrigendum was issued to the original notice. His firm deals with supply of readymade food and was supplying the same to the District Hospital, Ramanagara from 2021. The new tender notice by the Health Department was for supply of readymade food to the same hospital.

The tender notice had a condition regarding production of GST certificate. In the notice it was for one year. In the corrigendum it was increased to three years. Rajath’s firm was thereby disqualified from participating in the tender. His advocate argued that “any alteration or modification of the tender conditions would be a violation of law,” and the Department “could not have issued a corrigendum after issuance of tender notification.”

The Government advocate argued that the corrigendum is issued prior to the last date of submission of the bids and therefore there is no illegality committed. The HC in its judgment said that issuing a corrigendum was within the power of the authority issuing the tender. It also noted that the corrigendum was necessary as the State Government rules stipulate three years of GST.

“The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that corrigendum had to be issued, as stipulation of certificate of one year was itself contrary to the Government order which directed that in tenders three years of GST certificate is to be sought merits,” the HC said dismissing the petition.