ADVERTISEMENT

Consortium takes Tangedco to HC again

March 24, 2015 12:00 am | Updated 05:52 am IST - CHENNAI:

The scrapping of the tender for the 2X660 MW Udangudi Supercritical Thermal Power Project has kicked up a fresh controversy with a consortium moving the Madras High Court for a direction to Tangedco to furnish its board the order rejecting all the bids along with the reasons for it.

Justice T.S.Sivagnanam on Monday directed Tangedco to produce the notification on March 26.

The petitioner, CSEPDI-Trishe Consortium said it was an association of Trishe Energy Infrastructure Services Private Limited and Central Southern China Electric Power Design Institute, a State-owned company under the China Power Engineering Consulting Group Corporation.

ADVERTISEMENT

The petitioner was one of the short-listed bidders in the tender issued on April 7, 2013 for the Udangudi project. On October 18 last year, the price bids were opened. The validity of the bids was extended from time to time, the last extension being up to March 31 this year.

The petitioner quoted the lowest bid. While the consortium was waiting anxiously to know the results, it was shocked to read reports in leading English and Tamil newspapers that Tangedco had rejected the bids because of ‘technical deficiencies’ in the bids and scrapped the tender.

After a detailed evaluation, the petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder by about Rs.137 crore and lower cash outflow of over Rs.1,400 crore. Over five months had passed since the date of opening of the tender, but Tangedco had not sent any communication to it regarding the tender.

ADVERTISEMENT

The consortium, in addition to furnishing earnest money deposit of Rs.five crore, had spent a considerable sum towards the project.

As per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, tender processing was sought to be regulated, conducted and monitored by statutory authorities. The reasons for accepting or rejecting a bid would also have to be communicated to the tender bulletin officer for notifying the same, the petitioner said.

Counsel for the petitioner N.L. Rajah said that Tangedco ought to have communicated the reason why the tender was scrapped. “This is the barest minimum requirement.”

This is a Premium article available exclusively to our subscribers. To read 250+ such premium articles every month
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
The Hindu operates by its editorial values to provide you quality journalism.
This is your last free article.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT