Case Law Details
Universal Cables Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Conclusion: CIDCO were 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 had been undertaken by CIDCO on behalf of MSETCL as well as the execution of the same under the supervision of MSETCL. Therefore, the order of CIDCO was upheld in holding BNC to be technically qualified.
Held: CIDCO proposed to free up some space occupied by 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 supervision of MSETCL. CIDCO published Notice Inviting Bids for carrying out the work of conversion of existing lines of MSETCL and MSEDCL into underground cable system. The estimated cost provided in the NIB was Rs.50,77,79,970.04. Under the NIB, it was permissible for a bidder to collaborate with an Indian cable manufacturer and also with a foreign collaborator. The last date for submission of bids was 3rd December 2021. Assessee submitted their online bid on 3rd December 2021. 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 had collaborated with Taihan Cables and Solutions Company Ltd., (Taihan) a Korean Company, as permissible under Clause 6H of the NIB. Under arrangement proposed by BNC, Sterlite Power would manufacture cable systems of requisite technical specifications at its facility in collaboration with Taihan and BNC would execute the work of laying the cable system. CIDCO opened technical bids and found the three bidders, i.e., assessee, BNC and M/s. KEI Industries Ltd. to be technically qualified. The technical bids of all the bidders were uploaded by the CIDCO on e-tender portal. Assessee noticed certain deficiencies in the bid documents submitted by BNC and therefore addressed letter to CIDCO pointing out such deficiencies. Tender Committee had recorded its minutes and held BNC eligible. Upon opening the financial bids, the financial bid of BNC was the lowest and it was shortlisted in L-1 category, whereas assessee were shortlisted as bidder under L-2 category. Assessee had 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. Assessee’s case was that in case BNC was disqualified, assessee being L-2, would be awarded the contract. The Court held that it could not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the respondents/CIDCO. The evaluating committee consisted of experts. They were 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. The order of CIDCO was upheld in holding BNC to be technically qualified.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Upon being declared L-2 in the tender process, Petitioners seek disqualification of rival bidder declared L-1 (Respondent No. 8). Petitioners challenge the decision of City and Industrial Development Corporation (“CIDCO”) declaring respondent no.8 as technically qualified to participate in the tender process and seek rejection its bid for not meeting mandatory eligibility criteria and technical qualifying requirement under the tender.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
