The Bombay High Court ( HC ) has held that CIDCO can decide the Technical Qualification of the Bidder based on the opinion of Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. ( MSETCL ).
CIDCO proposed to free up some space occupied by the overhead power corridor of Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. ( MSETCL ) in Kharghar Node of Navi Mumbai with twin purposes of prevention of unauthorised occupation and utilisation of that space for public purposes and for sale of plots. CIDCO therefore decided to undertake the work of conversion of overhead power cables of MSETCL to underground cable system under the supervision of MSETCL and published Notice Inviting Bids for carrying out the work of conversion of existing 220kV and 33kV EHV/HT O/H lines of MSETCL and MSEDCL into underground cable system in Sector-5, Kharghar Node (NIB).
Under the NIB, it was permissible for a bidder to collaborate with an Indian cable manufacturer and with a foreign collaborator. Universal Cables Ltd, the Petitioners submitted their online bid on 3rd December 2021. Respondent no.8-BNC Power Projects Limited (BNC) as well as one more company, viz. M/s. KEI Industries Limited also submitted their bids.
BNC executed Manufacturer Authorization Form with Sterlite Power Transmission Ltd. (Sterlite Power), an Indian cable manufacturer who in turn has collaborated with Taihan Cables and Solutions Company Ltd., (Taihan) a Korean Company, as permissible under Clause 6H of the NIB. CIDCO opened technical bids on 6th December 2021 and found the three bidders, i.e., petitioners, BNC and M/s. KEI Industries Ltd. to be technically qualified.
The Petitioners noticed certain deficiencies in the bid documents submitted by BNC and pointed out such deficiencies to CIDCO. Petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the decision of CIDCO in holding BNC as eligible, despite the alleged deficiencies pointed out by them in BNC’s bid.
The Court held that it cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the respondents/CIDCO. The evaluating committee consists of experts. They are the best judge to consider compliance with technical and financial conditions.
MSETCL was consulted by CIDCO, both on account of the fact that the project has been undertaken by CIDCO on behalf of MSETCL as well as the execution of the same under the supervision of MSETCL. A Coram comprising Justice S.V Gangapurwala, & Sandeep V Marne upheld the order of CIDCO in holding respondent no.8-BNC to be technically qualified.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
