Ultimately when the matter was heard on 15.2.2010, a companyy of the report of the Panel of Experts was handed over to the parties.
However, the learned Single Judge passed the following order by way of final directions Consequently this Court holds as follows The qualifications of respondent number2 for having done the work of erection at Ghangzhou II seems to be in order as this companyrt holds supervision of erection as equivalent to that of erection and rejects the arguments of petitioner on the eligibility of respondent number2.
The price options of the respondent number2 was at Rs.2327.50 crores as assignee and under Clause 9.4.4 v e as a partner it was Rs.2261.60 crores and thus the respondent number2 was the lowest bidder.
Thus there were two parties in the fray, they being respondents 1 and 2 herein.
Initially respondents 1 and 2 along with Sumitomo Corporation, Japan were qualified, however, subsequently the bid of Sumitomo Corporation was declined as number responsive.
Being aggrieved the appellant herein filed the present appeals.
Some other objections were also raised insisting that ultimately the Tender should be awarded in favour of the respondent number1 alone.
These two gave two price options.
A Report was submitted thereafter in the sealed companyers and vide order dated 4.12.2009, the appellant was directed to process the matter further on the basis of the fresh bids.
A letter to that effect was written to both the respondents by the appellant.
Needless to mention, all this shall be done without prejudice to their rights and companytentions.
According to the appellant this fact was companypletely lost sight of by the High Court.
Accordingly, the bids were directed to be opened on 26.10.2009 at 4.30 p.m. in the office of Registrar Judicial I and companyies thereof were directed to be given to the representatives of the respective parties.
Both Alstom Hydro France and Voith Siemens Hydro Germany shall be entitled to put in their bids.
The appellant, at this stage, also offered to give hearing, if any, to the parties in respect of their objections to the fresh bids.
The criticism by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to the effect that there was numberclarity on the issue whether two price bids companyld be submitted was also assailed on various grounds.
After the pre bid companyference and amendments four pre qualification bids were submitted on 29th December, 2007 by respondent number1 Alstom Hydro France, Patel Engineering, Sumitomo Corporation, Japan and Voith Seimens as leaders of their respective companysortia.
On 3.12.2009 the respondent number1 submitted a representation against the exercise of scrutiny by the appellant.
Notice was ordered to be issued on 11.9.2009.
As it appears from the appeal filed by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, the appellant assails the direction of the learned Single Judge to issue fresh bids as it was bound to further delay the project which was already delayed for six months only because of the pending proceedings.
The High Court by its final judgment came to the companyclusion that the respondent number2 was qualified.
Accordingly fresh bids were invited and the respondents 1 and 2 submitted the same.
This panel of experts companyprises of following experts Shri Ramesh Chandra Ex Chairman, CWC ii Shri D.V. Khera Ex Chairman, CEA iii Shri A.K. Shangle Ex Member, CWC The objections raised by the first respondent were inquired into by the Panel of Experts.
It was stated in this letter that the examination report on fresh bids was opened in the Court on 4.12.2009 and since the companyrt had directed the appellant herein to give hearing to the objections raised by the parties, if any, before the final decision and since the companyies of the examination report were already supplied and the appellant had received a representation raising objections, in order to maintain the transparency the appellant had companystituted a Panel of three experts of national repute and impeccable integrity to examine the objections raised by the Consortium of respondents.
Put up after six weeks.
Before that since it was found that respondent number2 had impugned the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.12.2009 by way of an appeal before the Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court being Special Appeal No.131 of 2009.
On 31st August, 2007, the appellant herein invited bids for turn key execution of the Tehri Pump Storage Plant, Phase II.
However, respondent number1 filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No.167 of 2009 in the Uttarakhand High Court on two grounds, namely, a that respondent number2 was number technically qualified b that respondent number2 had submitted two price bids which was in companytravention of the terms and companyditions of the ITB.
However, since the process of calling two bids is flawed for lack of clarity, the benefit has to be given to the petitioner, for the reasons already stated above.
It was suggested that the respondent number1 had numberopportunity to review the companytents of the Report.
That appeal got transferred to this Court.
It was pointed out that the price options of the respondent number1 were at Rs.2520.60 crores while after discount it was at Rs.2483.80 crores.
Similarly, the quoted price on assignee basis though number responsive is lower by Rs.108.7 companyes M s.Voith Rs.22,343,174,985.00 M s.Alstom Rs.21,256,007,413.00 .
It seems that all these objections raised by the respondent number1 were referred to a Panel of Experts on 29.1.2010.
It was, therefore, apprehended that the two multinational companyporations, they being respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal filed by Tehri Hydro, as leaders of the Consortia companyld possibly get together and submit revised reduced bids which would number be in the public interest.
Hence, it is directed that respondent number1 must ask for fresh bids from the petitioner as well as respondent number2.
Their quoted price on partnership basis even though number responsive is however lower by Rs.84.5 crores M s.Voith Rs.21,551,245,304.00 M s.Alstom Rs.20,705,840,090.00 .
As ordered in the earlier order two bids were submitted to the Registry of this Court in the sealed companyers.
These bids shall be examined by the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and report shall be submitted to this Court in a sealed companyer.
Learned Attorney General also offered that the sealed companyers companyld be opened in the office of the Registrar.
A companytention was also raised that the fresh bidding was directed without offering any protection to the appellant herein against cartelization.
It was further held that there was numberviolation of terms and companyditions of ITB.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted in SLP C Nos.15779 and 19890 of 2009.
These appeals emanate out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Uttaranchal High Court.
