Udan­gudi project: HC re­jects con­sor­tium’s plea

Court al­lows Tangedco to give ten­der to BHEL, but re­fuses to award com­pen­satory costs

The Hindu - - TAMIL NADU - Spe­cial Cor­re­spon­dent

The Madras High Court on Thurs­day dis­missed a writ pe­ti­tion filed by CSEPDI-TRISHE, a con­sor­tium of Chi­nese Sta­te­owned com­pany Central South­ern China Elec­tric Power De­sign In­sti­tute and an In­dian pri­vate com­pany Trishe En­ergy In­fra­struc­ture Ser­vices, seek­ing a di­rec­tion to the Tamil Nadu Gen­er­a­tion and Dis­tri­bu­tion Cor­po­ra­tion (Tangedco) to award a ten­der to it for the 2 X 660 MW Udan­gudi Su­per­crit­i­cal Ther­mal Power Project.

Re­ject­ing the pe­ti­tion pend­ing in the court since 2015, Jus­tice K. Ravichan­drabaabu per­mit­ted Tangedco to go ahead with the process and award the ten­der to Bharat Heavy Elec­tri­cal Lim­ited (BHEL).

He, how­ever, re­fused to award com­pen­satory costs to Tangedco, since the pe­ti­tioner con­sor­tium had ap­proached the court im­me­di­ately af­ter the ten­der was floated in 2015 and the process could not be fi­nalised only be­cause of in­terim or­ders passed by the court.

Hold­ing that Tangedco had rightly re­jected pe­ti­tioner’s bid, the judge said: “It is ev­i­dent that the pe­ti­tioner (con­sor­tium) have not con­ducted them­selves fairly and strictly in ac­cor­dance with the terms and con­di­tions of the ten­der more par­tic­u­larly by not com­ply­ing with fur­nish­ing of manda­tory re­quire­ments/details in Cover B. In­stead, it is ev­i­dent that the pe­ti­tioner had fur­nished vi­tal in­for­ma­tion only by way of sup­ple­men­tary bid af­ter open­ing of the Cover A of both par­ties.

“There­fore, this court finds that the pe­ti­tioner has cer­tainly played an un­fair game with hid­den agenda... It is also ev­i­dent that the pe­ti­tioner wanted to know the other side story first be­fore ever they could tell their story so as to en­able them to al­ter their story in or­der to suit the re­quire­ment of the Tangedco. There­fore, I find that the de­ci­sion to re­ject the pe­ti­tioner’s ten­der was rightly taken by the re­spon­dent Cor­po­ra­tion with which I find no mala fide, il­le­gal­ity, ar­bi­trari­ness or un­rea­son­able­ness,” the judge said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.