IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Alok Aradhe, C.J., M. S. Karnik, J.
Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra state Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No.3590 of 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.17609 OF 2024
Decided on : 09-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 - Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016 - Definition of 'independent power producer' - The petitioner challenged the rejection of its bid by MAHAGENCO on grounds of blacklisting by BPSCPL, a joint venture of government entities. The court found that BPSCPL qualifies as a government entity under Article 12, thus the rejection was valid. (Paras 13-19)
(B) Tender Process - The court emphasized that the terms of the tender document must be adhered to, and the petitioner was debarred for providing misleading information regarding its blacklisting status. (Paras 14-19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a coal sales company, had its bid rejected by MAHAGENCO due to its blacklisting by BPSCPL, which was deemed a government entity. The petitioner argued that BPSCPL was not a government entity and that the tender process was unfair.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the rejection of the bid, affirming that BPSCPL is a government entity and the blacklisting was valid.
Issues: The primary issue was whether BPSCPL is a government entity or an independent power producer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of 'government entity' includes BPSCPL, thus validating the rejection of the petitioner's bid based on its blacklisting status.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. (petitioner) is a company, engaged in the business of liaisoning, movement, handling and delivery of raw coal from Coalfields to Thermal Power stations by by rail as well as rail-sea route. Mr. Sampat Shete is the Director of the petitioner.
(A) CHALLENGE:
3. In this petition, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected by the Chief Engineer (Fuel Management) MAHAGENCO (Chief Engineer). The petitioners have also assailed the validity of e-mail dated 17th May 2024 by which the Chief Engineer issued a notice for forfeiture of EMD amount of the petitioner. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
(B) FACTS:
4. The Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. (BPSCPL), on 22nd October 2022 issued a Notice Inviting Tender for the work of linkage materialisation and shortage minimization for Coal Supply from Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) to BPSCPL. The estimated value of the contract was Rs.37,58,841 (excluding GST). On 14th November 2022, petitioner submitted its bid for an amount of Rs.21,00,00,000/- (Twenty-one crores only) and was informed by an email dated 11th May 2023 that the bid submitted by the petitioner is accepted and the reverse auction would be held on 12th May 2023. The petitioner, on 12th May 2023 logged into the portal to participate in the reverse auction process and learnt that start price of the auction was a meagre sum of INR 21/- for the entire tendered quantity. The petitioner, thereupon immediately submitted a representation to BPSCPL to annul the reverse auction process. However, the BPSCPL continued with the auction process in which no bidder participated.
5. The BPSCPL, on 14th July 2023 debarred the petitioner from participating in any auction of tender for a period of one year. The petitioner, thereupon on 31st July 2023 filed a writ petition No.18476 of 2023 before the Calcutta High court against the order dated 14th July 2023.
6. The Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (MAHAGENCO) on 10th November 2023 commenced sale of e- tender document for appointment of Supervision, Monitoring & Co-ordination (SMC) agency for the work of supervision of coal rakes movements, coal quantity and quality monitoring, loading of quality coal and movement of sized coal for various TPS of MAHAGENCO from Western Coalfields Ltd. The period of contract was one year with provision for extension of six months, subject to performance. The petitioner, on 22nd November 2023 made payment of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lac) in favour of MAHAGENCO and on 22nd December 2023 the petitioner submitted its bid in response to the aforesaid e- tender. However, MAHAGENCO, on 23rd January 2024 rejected the bid of the petitioner and on 31st January 2024 accepted the bids of respondent Sendoz Commercials Private Limited and Godavari Commodities Limited and issued a letter of award in their favour. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted representation on 30th January 2024. The MAHAGENCO, vide response dated 9th February 2024, informed the petitioner that the petitioner was debarred/blacklisted by BPSCPL for a period of one year from 14th July 2023 and therefore, the bid of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner, thereupon, submitted another communication dated 10th February 2024 to MAHAGENCO stating that the petitioner has not violated any terms of the tender. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, by an ad-interim order dated 19th February 2024 stayed the order dated 14th July 2023 of debarment / blacklisting the petitioner till 31st March 2024 or until further order, whichever is earlier.
7. The MAHAGENCO, on 21st March 2024 issued work order in favour of Sendoz Commercials Private Limited and Godavari Commodities Limited. The learned Single
The court affirmed that BPSCPL is a government entity under Article 12, validating the rejection of the petitioner's bid due to blacklisting.
The court affirmed that a bidder's prior blacklisting by a Government entity justifies the rejection of its tender bid, emphasizing adherence to eligibility criteria in tender documents.
The court affirmed that a bidder's prior debarment by a Government entity justifies the rejection of their tender bid, emphasizing the importance of clarity in tender definitions.
The decision to disqualify a bidder from a tender process does not require a reasoned order and should defer to the understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer of the proje....
The court affirmed that a bidder's disqualification due to false declarations in tender processes is valid, emphasizing limited judicial review in contractual matters.
A participant in a tender process must disclose any prior blacklisting, which renders them ineligible if concealed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.