clarification Corrigendum no. 3 issued on 16th February, 2024, do not provide for such an increase in the license fee based on coach composition. As per the case put forth by the petitioner, it is entitled to fixed annual license fee as per the terms of the agreement and no revision can be allowed. 7. On the other hand, as per the respondent no. 2, the information about the subject train, including, type and number of coaches, i.e., only 8 coaches, as operated by the South Central Railway, was common knowledge. In the previous ad-hoc tenders for the subject train, it had clearly been stated that the subject train comprised of 8 coaches. The number of coaches in the subject train as were mentioned in the tender, was due to an inadvertent typographical error in the tender. Further, the tender document provided for the „ Disclaimer’ whereby, IRCTC did not make any representation and warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or competence of the information in the bid document, and all bidders were to conduct their own investigations and analysis to check the accuracy, reliability and competence of the bid document. The relevant part of the bid document, as relied upon by the respondent no. 2, is reproduced as under:
