The High Court of Karnataka has cleared the way for Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) to continue its tender process for the ₹8,005 crore Sharavathy Pumped Storage and Hydroelectric project in Shivamogga and Uttara Kannada districts by dismissing an appeal filed a leading construction and infrastructure company.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Krishna S. Dixit passed the order while dismissing the appeal filed by M/s Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd., Mumbai.
The company had challenged a March 6 judgement of a single judge, who had rejected its petition, in which the company had challenged the 21-day period provided for submitting bids for the mammoth project that required a detailed study before submission of bids instead of providing 90-120 days as per the rules.
March 11 order
KPCL had accepted the bid of M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd, Hyderabad, after the single judge’s verdict and before the Division Bench passed an interim order on March 11 to maintain status quo on the tender process.
Electoral bonds and Megha Engineering
Electoral bonds full data | MEIL’s ₹584 crore to BJP is top donation to any party
33 loss-making firms donated electoral bonds worth ₹582 crore, 75% went to BJP | Data
Electoral bonds full data | MEIL’s ₹584 crore to BJP is top donation to any party
Did the electoral bonds scheme enable extortion?
Electoral bonds full data | MEIL’s ₹584 crore to BJP is top donation to any party
Sordid scheme: On the electoral bond scheme, electoral financing
Electoral bonds linked to project clearances by BRS government in Telangana
Realty majors in news helped BRS become fourth highest recipient of electoral bonds
Electoral bonds full data | MEIL’s ₹584 crore to BJP is top donation to any party
However, the Bench in its final verdict of April 25 has said that the “tender inviting authority is the best to judge as to what time should be prescribed in the tender conditions for submission of bids by the tenderers, depending upon the exigencies 54 of the tender work, though in all ordinary cases, it may abide by the time limit mentioned in Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000.”
“It could hardly be concluded that the time-period of 21 days given for submission of bids was unreasonably less to be preventive in nature,” the Bench said, while noticing that other bidders participated were able to tender their bids within the stipulated time.
The Bench said that the appellant company perhaps wanted enlargement of time for its commercial consideration as it was unable to enter into an agreement with an electro-mechanical expert agency, as L&T specialises only in the civil works of the project, for submitting the bid.
Conditional offer
“When any intending bidder puts forward its own term in disagreement with the term or condition in the tender, it will amount to conditional offer which is not permissible... Nor it is permissible for the intending bidder to dictate its own term to the Tender Inviting Authority,” the Bench observed.
The manner in which L&T participated in tender process suggests that it acted as a fence-sitter as ultimately it did not submit the bid and kept itself away from participating in the tender, the Bench said while pointing out that the company had gathered information by visiting the site, went on to correspond with KPCL showing interest in the bid submission and giving its own suggestions about the conditions including the time-period for submission of the bid, besides showing that it had been negotiating with the expert partners for electro-mechanical part of the project.
