Larsen and Toubro had challenged a March 6 judgement of a single choose, who had rejected its petition, during which the corporate had challenged the 21-day interval supplied for submitting bids for the mammoth project that required an in depth examine earlier than submission of bids as an alternative of offering 90-120 days as per the principles.
The High Court of Karnataka has cleared the way in which for Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) to proceed 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 number one development and infrastructure firm.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Krishna S. Dixit handed the order whereas dismissing the appeal filed by M/s Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd., Mumbai.
The firm had challenged a March 6 judgement of a single choose, who had rejected its petition, during which the corporate had challenged the 21-day interval supplied for submitting bids for the mammoth project that required an in depth examine earlier than submission of bids as an alternative of offering 90-120 days as per the principles.
March 11 order
KPCL had accepted the bid of M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd, Hyderabad, after the one choose’s verdict and earlier than the Division Bench handed an interim order on March 11 to take care of establishment on the tender process.
However, the Bench in its last verdict of April 25 has stated 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 stated, whereas noticing that different bidders participated have been capable of tender their bids throughout the stipulated time.
The Bench stated that the appellant firm maybe needed enlargement of time for its industrial consideration because it was unable to enter into an settlement with an electro-mechanical skilled company, as L&T specialises solely within the civil works of the project, for submitting the bid.
Conditional supply
“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 noticed.
The method during which L&T participated in tender process means that it acted as a fence-sitter as in the end it didn’t submit the bid and stored itself away from taking part within the tender, the Bench stated whereas stating that the corporate had gathered info by visiting the positioning, went on to correspond with KPCL displaying curiosity within the bid submission and giving its personal recommendations concerning the situations together with the time-period for submission of the bid, apart from displaying that it had been negotiating with the skilled companions for electro-mechanical a part of the project.