Madras HC bench recuses from hearing petition on tender for

A division bench of the Madras High Court today recused itself from hearing an appeal by state-owned power utility TANGEDCO against a single judge's order restraining it from proceeding with the tender process for a Rs 8,000-crore thermal power project.
The bench, comprising Justice Sathish K Agnihotri and Justice M Venugopal, directed that the appeal be listed along with a similar pending matter posted before another bench.
The order was given after senior counsel Sriram Panchu made a submission drawing the bench's attention to its earlier direction when it had recused from hearing the similar matter.
Earlier, the bench adjourned the appeal by a week after the submission of the counsel appearing for the state Electricity Board that some more papers have to be filed.

He also said Advocate General A.L.Somayaji will argue the appeal on behalf of TANGEDCO.
Justice M. Sathyanarayanan had on July 1 last restrained TANGEDCO from proceeding further with the tender process for the Udangudi power project on a petition by CSEPDI-TRISHE Consortium, represented by its Managing Director Sanjay K.Pillai.

The consortium had sought to quash the proceedings of TANGEDCO dated March 13, 2015 recording the decision to close the tender in respect of the 2 x 660 MW Udangudi Supercritical Thermal Power Project.
It also sought a direction to TANGEDCO to award the tender to them tasking in to account their bid.

TANGEDCO had, in its appeal submitted, that the consortium made a defective bid as it was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of tender.
Contending that the single Judge had passed the order in clear violation of Rule 26 (3) of Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Rules, 2000, the appeal said as validity of the bids of the consortium and BHEL had expired on March 31, a fresh tender process was inevitable.
The single judge should have dismissed the consortium's petition as infructuous, TANGEDCO said.
The appeal said a mere invitation to offer can never be construed as an assurance that the offer made by the tenderer would be accepted regardless of how flawed the offer might be or how counter-productive accepting the consortium's bid might be to the appellant Board's interest.

It also said a writ of mandamus would not lie to the state, compelling it to enter into a contract as it would strike at the very heart of the state's freedom of contract and power to decide on such contracts.
The appeal further said the decision to scrap the tender process does not affect the rights of the bidders.