While issuing a notice returnable by August 14, Justice M.Sathyanarayanan, before whom the plea came up, reserved the orders on a miscellaneous petition filed by the firm Central Southern China Electric Power Design Institute (CSEPDI)-Trishe Consortium, Chennai, seeking interim injunction restraining TANGEDCO from finalising tenders without considering its representations made on different dates.
The main contention of the firm was that as per clause 29 of the terms and conditions, tenders submitted by the firms, whose performance was poor in the past, should be rejected.
The petitioner contended the implication of the above Clause read with Sections 10 (1) and 10 (2) of The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 is clear that tendering authority has to apply its mind to past performance of the tenderer and if on the basis of such materials as are brought to its attention it is satisfied that the bidder has failed to perform to the optimum level, then it should proceed to disqualify the bidder.
The petitioner submitted several representations detailing these facts but there was no reply from TANGEDCO and reliably given to understand that ignoring all the above facts TANGEDCO will proceed to award the tender in favour of BHEL.
Hence, there was no other option except to approach the court, the petitioner said and prayed for a direction to TANGEDCO to finalise the tenders according to Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act read with clause 29 of the terms and conditions of the Tender.