S.N. Phukan JUDGMENT
S.S.M. Quadri, J.
1. This appeal by the West Bengal State Electricity Board is from the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 398 of 2000, C.A.N. No. 1089 of 2000 and M.A.T. No. 523 of 2000 with cross objections (C.O.T. No. 522 of 2000) dated April 4, 2000 dismissing the appeals and cross objections and confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22458(W) of 1999 dated February 3, 2000.
2. To appreciate the controversy in this case narration of the following relevant facts will be necessary.
3. As a pragmatic solution to meet the peak demand of the energy/power by the West Bengal and also to cater to the requirements of the entire Eastern Region, the West Bengal State Electricity Board (for short, `the appellant') formulated "Purulia Pumped Storage Project" (for short, `the Project'), at an estimated cost of about Rs.3,188.9 crores with an installed capacity of 900 M.W. For funding that project the Central Government entered into a loan agreement with the Overseas Economic Cooperative Fund now Japan Bank of International Cooperation (for short, `the J.B.I.C.'). The Project is proposed to be completed in six Lots of which Lot No. 4 relates to main civil works. For carrying out the work of Lot No. 4, the appellant, after complying with the formalities and after satisfying itself of the pre- qualification of the bidders, invited revised tenders (hereinafter referred to as, the tenders'). The bids were to be submitted on or before April 27, 1998. Three bidders are now in fray. The first is a consortium of four companies (respondent Nos.1 to 4), the second is M/s. Taisei Corporation (respondent No. 10) and the third is M/s. Skanska International (respondent No. 11). They submitted their bids along with the summary sheets thereof. On September 8, 1999 the bids were opened in the presence of the representatives of the bidders and they were read out; the bid of respondent Nos.1 to 4 was Rs.647.90 crores, of respondent No. 11 was Rs.691.22 crores and of respondent No. 10 was 726.50 crores. While the details of the bid were under scrutiny, by letter dated October 25, 1999, respondent Nos.1 to 4 informed the appellant that there was "a repetitive systematic computer typographical transmission failure" and requested that it be corrected. On December 17, 1999 they sent another letter stating that they had reason to believe that the appellant was evaluating their price bid by an illogical and incorrect application of the Instructions To Bidders (for short, `the ITB') and pointed out that the mistake indicated in their letter of October 25, 1999 was that Indian Rupee unit rate stated in the first line Item 0.2 was repeated in the next two succeeding lines, which is clerical in nature and not an arithmetic error. They emphasised that their bid was the lowest at Rs.647.90 crores and assured that they would maintain the said bid price. Under the ITB, the appellant evaluated their bid and on December 18, 1999 informed them that during checking of their bid documents a good number of arithmetic errors was discovered. Copies of duly corrected documents were communicated to the said respondents for their response to be sent in writing to the appellant before December 27, 1999 (1700 IST). A caveat was also entered that the said letter did not provide any confir........