IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 13166 OF 2024

22.04.2026 Between:

M/s Loesche Energy Systems India Private Limited ….. Petitioner And NTPC Limited & another ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Respondent - NTPC rejected Petitioner's bid by way of e-mail dated 02.05.2024 which was questioned in this Writ Petition filed seeking Certiorari on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary, untenable, violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of Petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are: Respondent – NTPC invited bids from eligible bidders for the 'Contract for Design, Engg, Manufacturing. Supply of New better/efficient Coal Pulv by replacement of existing 8.5E10 Coal Pulverizers at st-1 boiler of NRPC RDM' vide its Invitation of Bids bearing NIT No. 9900258610 ("IFB") with respect to the Tender bearing no. NTPC/USSC-CPG1/9900258610 dated 21.11.2023. In terms of the IFB, the scope of work shall include but not be limited to the supply, erection, testing and inspection of equipment and materials manufacturer's works, packing, supply, transportation, transit insurance, delivery to site, unloading, storage and equipment erection including associated civil and structural works if any. Pertinently, the site of works is situated in Ramagundam, Telangana. The IFB mentions the term 'NRPC RDM in which NRPC is inadvertently misspelt instead of 'NTPC'

and 'RDM' is short for 'Ramagundam’.

2.1. As per the IFB, to be eligible for participation in the bidding process, bidders had to meet certain Qualification Requirements (QR) which include both Technical and Financial Criteria which were made a mention in the writ affidavit, in detail. Hence, the same are not reiterated.

2.2. Pursuant to the Tender, Petitioner submitted bid on 27.02.2024, enclosing all the documents, as per the IFB. Thereafter, Respondent addressed e mail dated 03.04.2024 and sought various documents in furtherance of Petitioner's technical bid. Petitioner responded vide its e mail dated 06.04.2024 and provided all necessary documents including but not limited to the audited balance sheet of Loesche UK., proposed coal mill GA drawing, proof that the QCMM had erected/supervised the erection and commissioned/supervised the commissioning against the contract of M/s. Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Co. Ltd.

2.3. In response thereto, vide e mail dated 10.04.2024, Respondent inter alia sought further clarifications from Petitioner more particularly, as to how the Petitioner fulfilled the Additional Financial Criteria under Clause 6.2.2 of the IFB and also sought documents in support thereof. Vide its e mail dated 13.04.2024, Petitioner issued a detailed response to Respondent, clarifying the queries apprising that it qualifies under Clause 6.3.1 as a "licensor" of QCMM and accordingly licensing agreement dated 31.03.2015 was submitted. Since Clause 6.2.2.1 only refers to "collaborator" or "associate" and does not prescribe any additional financial criteria for a "licensor", the additional financial criteria are not required to be fulfilled by Petitioner. It was also informed that Petitioner by itself qualifies the financial criteria under the tender with an average annual turnover of INR 74.51 crores and a net worth of

452.19% in the preceding financial year.

2.4. Despite these clarifications, Respondent issued another e mail dated 16.04.2024 on similar lines and once again sought supporting documents from Petitioner regarding the fulfilment of additional financial criteria by the OCMM of the Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that whenever Petitioner asked for clarifications from Respondent, its response was also mechanical thereby not providing necessary inputs regarding the bid. Petitioner immediately responded to the Respondent's e mail dated 16.04.2024 vide its e mail dated 19.04.2024 and once again, clarified the position that Clause 6.2.2 specifies the additional qualifica