SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Sungrace Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Energy Efficiency Services Ltd - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 5840 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 18296-18299 of 2021
Decided On : 14-09-2021

Advocates appeared:
Rohit Rathi, Advocate, Vikram Jetly, Advocate, Samdarshi Sanjay, Advocate, Prakash Jha, Advocate, Kumar Saurabh, Advocate, Nikhil Bhandari, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bidding process must adhere to the specified criteria and that the interpretation of bidding document clauses should be in favor of the bidder if there is ambiguity.

Headnote:

Quash - Bidding Process - [Annexure II, Annexure III, RFP Document, IFB] - The court quashed the communication dated 20.05.2021 and directed for the recalculation of the Average Annual Turnover of the Petitioner and assess its responsiveness in Technical evaluation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a leader in the solar industry, submitted a bid for a solar project. The respondent rejected the bid based on the Average Annual Turnover (ATO) requirement, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's rejection of the bid based on the ATO requirement was incorrect and directed for the recalculation of the ATO and reassessment of the bid's responsiveness.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's bid based on the ATO requirement and the interpretation of the relevant clauses in the bidding documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to take the average ATO of any of the 3 years out of the last 4 years, as specified in the bidding documents, and that the respondent should have accepted the bid based on this provision.

Final Decision: The court quashed the communication dated 20.05.2021 and directed for the recalculation of the Average Annual Turnover of the Petitioner and assess its responsiveness in Technical evaluation.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. - The writ petition has been filed seeking the following substantive prayers:

    a) Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 20.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2 insofar it fails to include the Petitioner in the Envelope Name: Price Bid

    b) Quash and set aside the impugned e-mail communication dated and 21.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner;

    c)

    d) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to re-conduct the entire bidding process in terms of the IFB;

    e) Stay further process with respect to Open Tender NIT/Bid Doc. No.:-EESL/ 06/ 2020-21/ KUSUM/ WPS /1-10 HP/ Off Grid/ 202101032 dated 14.01.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2;

    f) Direct the Respondents to provide reason(s) for rejection of Technical Qualification bid of the Petitioner;

    g) Pass any such other order / directions as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;"

    2) The Petitioner is stated to be one of Indias oldest leaders in the solar industry with over 20 years of experience. The Petitioner is into manufacturing of various products including Crystalline Solar Photovoltaic module of multiple ranges and provides varied solutions including Solar Water Pumping.

    3) The respondent is Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) and is a Super Energy Service Company (ESCO), which enables consumers, industries and governments to effectively manage their energy needs through energy efficient technologies. EESL was founded in 2009, promoted by Ministry of Power, Government of India as a Joint Venture of four reputed public-sector undertakings namely a) NTPC Limited, b) Power Finance Corporation Limited, c) REC Limited and d) POWERGRID Corporation of India Limited.

    4) On 14.01.2021, respondent No. 2 invited Detailed Invitation for Bids (IFB) for design, manufacture, supply transport, installation, testing and commissioning of Off Grid Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping Systems of 1-10 HP in Selected States on PAN India basis, including complete system warranty and its repair and maintenance for 5 Years under MNRE KUSUM scheme ComponentB.

    5) Respondent invited e-bids from eligible bidders for the aforesaid work under Single-stage Three-envelope bidding process through E-tendering.

    6) Pursuant to the IFB dated 14.01.2021, petitioner submitted its bid with the relevant documents vide the E-tendering process, as per the format prescribed by the respondent. The Petitioner submitted their documents on 16.02.2021 and the Respondent issued the Envelope receipt on 16.02.2021 and duly acknowledged the documents.

    7) On 03.03.2021, the Technical Qualification bids were opened by Respondent No.2 and the petitioners bid was rejected, insofar the petitioner was not included in the Envelope Name: Price Bid. Vide communication dated 20.05.2021, the petitioner got to know that his technical bid had been rejected.

    8) Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner on the same date i.e. 20.05.2021 addressed a communication to respondent No. 2 thereby stating, inter-alia, that as a fair practise all the bids should have been opened to all participating tenderers to ensure no one is duly favoured. Subsequent to the said communication, respondent No.2 on 21.05.2021 vide an auto- generated response, informed the petitioner that the petitioners bid was found to be non-responsive for technical evaluation. Since no reply was received for the communication dated 20.05.2021, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition.

    9) When the matter came up before this Court on 04.06.2021 this Court directed the respondent to file the Counter affidavit (within 4 weeks). This Court further directed the tender in question not to be finalised till the next date of hearing.

    10) Pursuant to our order of 04.06.2021, the respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and the reason for rejection has been stated in Para B(x) which reads as under:

      "(x)




                              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                              1
                              2
                              3
                              4
                              5
                              6
                              7
                              8
                              9
                              10
                              11
                              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                              supreme today icon
                              logo-black

                              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                              Please visit our Training & Support
                              Center or Contact Us for assistance

                              qr

                              Scan Me!

                              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                              whatsapp-icon Back to top