1. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 13.03.2015, closing/lodging the tender bearing SPEC No.SE/C/UP/EE1/OT No.1/2013-14 in respect of the 2 X 660 MW Udangudi Supercritical Thermal Power Project, published in the State Tender Bulletin dated 26.03.2015, quash the same and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents to award the Tender to the petitioner in terms of the Tender/Bid document bearing SPEC No.SE/C/UP/EE1/OT No.1/2013-14, taking into account the petitioner's bid, which has been evaluated as the Lowest Bid (L1).

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a) The petitioner is a Consortium of Trishe Energy Infrastructure Services Private Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and Central Southern China Electric Power Design Institute (CSEPDI), which is the Lead Partner of the petitioner Consortium, a Chinese State-owned company established in 1954. The Said company is one of the largest enterprises in China for electric power survey and design and general engineering contracting. The petitioner's financial partner is Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC).

(b) The first respondent, through the second respondent, issued tender/bid document bearing SPEC No.SE/C/UP/EE1/OT No.1/2013-14 for setting up 2X 660 MW Udangudi Supercritical Thermal Power Project. Originally, the first respondent entered into a joint venture with the fourth respondent herein and however, as there was no progress, the Government of Tamilnadu disassociated itself from the fourth respondent and the joint venture was called off. Thus, the first respondent called for the above global tender. The tender notification was issued on 07.04.2013. The first respondent floated identical tenders for Ennore and Udangudi Thermal Power Projects on a Debt-cum-EPC basis putting the onus of arranging the lowest interest rate debt for the first respondent on the bidders. The bid was evaluated in two stages, viz., a) Techno-Commercial Evaluation-Stage I, b) Financial Evaluation-Stage II.

(c) The petitioner participated in both the tenders. The first respondent by adopting a partisan, illegal, malafide and flawed evaluation, awarded the Ennore project to the fourth respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.26762 of 2014, challenging such award of the Ennore project in favour of the fourth respondent. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 07.04.2015, against which, the petitioner preferred writ appeal. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeals and directed the Corporation to evaluate the price bid of the petitioner and record detailed reasons for the decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. The said decision of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the TANGEDCO. By an order dated 18.10.2016 reported in 2017(4) SCC 381, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Division Bench. However, the present dispute is with regard to Udangudi project.

(d) In respect of the subject matter tender (Udangudi project), the pre bid meeting was held on 23.05.2013 and 25.05.2013. On 19.07.2013, four bidders including the petitioner and the fourth respondent submitted their bids. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5 crores towards EMD. During the preliminary examination, two of the bidders were disqualified, since they did not meet the Bid Qualification Requirements. The petitioner and the fourth respondent were found qualified and thus, they were considered for technical evaluation.

(e) 13.11.2013, the first respondent invited the petitioner to attend the Techno-Commercial Meeting. Clarifications sought for by the respondents 1 and 2 were given in the post bid clarification meeting held between 18.11.2013 and 24.12.2013. Thus, the Techno-Commercial evaluation was completed in January 2014. After 9 months, the third respondent issued a letter dated 13.10.2014, calling upon the petitio