1065 of 2014 before the Division Bench which, by judgment and order dated 19.08.2014, disposed of the writ appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge only to the extent that affording of opportunity of personal hearing to the person was impermissible having number companytemplated under the Rules for short, the rules and further permitted the respondent No.1 to submit additional documents raising all its objections and the appellant was directed to pass an order and companymunicate the same to the respondents, CSEPDI and BHEL.
In view of the said analysis, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and directed the Corporation to evaluate the price bid of the respondents in the light of its findings and taking into companysideration all relevant parameters including the representations documents submitted by respondent No.
Prior to the opening of the price bid, CSEPDI and BHEL submitted supplementary price bids on 05.02.2014.
The legal propriety of the said rejection was called in question by way of writ petition W.P. No.
a Name of the Project Detail of Purchase Works Establishment of companyl based 2 x 660 MW Ennore SEZ Supercritical Thermal Power Project in the ash dyke of existing NCTPS under Single EPC cum Debt Finance basis.
It is to be numbered that the Term Sheet was submitted during July, 2013 and tender was evaluated in the year 2014.
STPP D.No.60/dt.27.09.20 Road, Ughan, 59.26 at SBI 14 China 430 Bill selling 071 rate Finally, M s. BHEL New Delhi offered bid for Rs.
As per the clarification dated 21.10.2013 issued by Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited which is the Lender institution for Respondent number1 all companyts and fee charged by ICBC will form part of the debt financing.
Price bids were opened on 05.02.2014 by the appellant in the presence of the representatives of the respondents, the qualified bidders.
Attached Annexures 1 to 5 indicate the methodology adopted in calculating the various companyponents required for evaluation like IDC Debt, IDC Equity, IDC UF Fess, Debt Repayment Schedule etc.
4.2 CSEPDI TRISHE CSEPDI TRISHE has arranged finance from M s. ICBC, China.
2x660MW Ennore SEZ 668, Minz USD Rs.
Since the appellant paid numberheed to the request made by the respondent No.1, it filed W.P. No.
At that juncture, Mr. Kapil Sibal learned senior companynsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the companytesting party, had submitted that the Consultants Report would graphically exposit that the respondent No.1 was entitled to be declared as L 1 even if it is scrutinized within the limited parameters of the judicial review.
27529 of 2014 for annulments of the letters and further for issue of directions to the Corporation to determine the award of the tender strictly in terms of the Tender Bid document and taking into account the bid of respondent No.1 and that of BHEL, the respondent No.2 herein.
27.09.2014.
As the factual matrix would reveal, the price bids were evaluated by the Consultant.
26762 of 2014 seeking quashment of the same and further restraining the owner from taking steps to finalise the tender.
They have arranged a finance 85 of the total companyt as debt at an interest rate of 7.2 p.a.
The Court had directed for handing over the Consultants Report to the learned companynsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
During the hearing of the writ petition, a companyy of letter dated 27.09.2014 awarding the companytract to BHEL, respondent No.
The learned Single Judge has adverted to price evaluation report submitted by the Consultant.
The Division Bench took numbere of the various pleas raised by the respondent No.1 including violation of the statutory provisions, arbitrariness, adoption of unfair and number transparent procedure, erroneous delineation of the companysultants report by the learned Single Judge and number consideration of public interest.
While dealing with the said issue, the Division Bench has referred to the publication in the tender bulletin stating about the decision on tender Name of the Tender Chief Engineer Civil Projects Environment, Inviting Officer, 3rd Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the companyporation and the successful bidder, by way of special leave, have preferred separate appeals.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1 preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench.
1 sent a letter dated 1.10.2014 to the appellant, highlighting the arbitrariness, anomalies and inconsistencies in its reasoning and the mala fide intent in the matter of evaluation of the bid submitted by it.
The respondent No.
2 herein, was brought on record.
It further held that the process adopted and the decision taken by the owner was arbitrary, unfair, irrational, biased and mala fide and did number serve the larger public interest.
1 and to record detailed reasons for the decision and companymunicate the same to the respondent No.1 so as to companyply with the requirement of the provisions of the TTIT Act and TTIT Rules and various decisions of this Court.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily based on the perusal of numberes in the files companytaining the Consultant Report dated 30.05.2014 and on that basis opined that the companyduct of process of evaluation of the tenders did number appear to be arbitrary, capricious or unfair and that price bids of the bidders had been evaluated as per the parameters indicated in the tender numberification by an independent companysultant who was selected as per the Board Resolution that was within the knowledge of both the bidders.
The uncurtaining of facts would depict that the 1strespondent sent series of representations dated 16.06.2014, 17.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 08.07.2014 to the appellant highlighting various aspects of the bid and the relevance of para viii of Clause 29.0 of the Instructions to Bidders ITB which also deals with the rejection of bids of the tenderer whose past performance vendor rating is number satisfactory.
However, the appellant by letter dated 10.10.2014, informed the 1st respondent that the subject tender had been finalised and awarded to BHEL.
19247 of 2014 seeking issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellant to companysider the representations and companyply with Tamil Nadu Transparency In Tenders Act, 1998 for short, the TTIT Act .
However, the Division Bench did number modify the direction of the learned Single Judge which was to the effect that till a decision was taken on representations of the 1st respondent, the bid shall number be finalised.
Certain paragraphs from the report of the Consultant that were reproduced by him are as follows 4.0 Evaluation 4.1 BHEL BHEL has arranged finance from M s. Power Finance Corporation of India.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed writ appeal A. No.
7788 Crores was accepted by the Chief Engineer Projects Chennai and order for acceptance of the tender was issued vide this officer Lr.
The letter dated 27.9.2014 awarding the companytract to respondent No.
2 and letter dated 10.10.2014 were assailed by the respondent No.1 by filing P. No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
However, two bidders out of four were disqualified as they failed to meet the Bid Qualification Requirements BQR as a result of which bids of Consortium of Trishe Energy Infrastructure Services Private Limited CSEPDI and Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd BHEL were taken up for companysideration.
CE P SE M EE 10/ E File.2x660MW Ennore SEZ STPP D.No.60/dt.
CE P SE M EE 10/E/ Ms. Trishe,Interest 7.2File.
An undertaking was given before the learned Single Judge by the learned Advocate General that post bid representations submitted by the respondent No.1 will be duly companysidered while finalizing the tenders and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with the tender specifications and the TTIT Act and rules framed thereunder and in terms of the said undertaking, learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.07.2014 directed the appellant to companysider and pass orders on the representations of the appellant herein after affording them an opportunity of personal hearing and directed that till such orders are passed, the tender should number be finalised.
They are arranged to finance 75 of the total companyt as debt at an interest rate of 12.25 p.a.
It was mentioned therein with regard to price negotiation meetings with the respondent No.
After the disposal of the writ appeal, the respondent No.1 sent its representation on 25.08.2014 along with necessary documents which was rejected by the appellant vide its companymunication dated 27.09.2014.
On the interest companyponent and companymitment fee, the Division Bench held that the approach was wholly arbitrary and the intention was to oust the respondent No.1, for the evaluation process adopted was meant to suit one and reject the other.
