The Madras High Court has said Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) cannot finalise bids/tenders for the Rs 9,207-crore supercritical thermal power project at Ennore without considering representations of a Chinese firm-led consortium.
"This court can take judicial notice of the fact that this state is reeling under power shortage and commissioning of power projects stated in the writ petition is vital and very important to the welfare of the state.
"The court, therefore, expects the authorities to act fairly and reasonably by considering representations of the consortium dated June 16 and 17, July 1 and 8, 2014," Justice M Sathyanarayanan said granting interim orders in favour of Central Southern China Electric Power Design Institute CSEPDI-TRISHE.
The matter relates to a contract for Rs 9207-crore 2x 660 MW Ennore SEZ supercritical thermal power project for which the petitioner-consortium and BHEL were the bidders.
The consortium filed the present petition, saying BHEL should have been disqualified from the bidding process as it had delayed power projects worth 27,000 crore involving 7,300 MW in Tamil Nadu.
Allowing its interim plea, Justice Sathyanarayanan said TANGEDCO had already written to authorities, promising to consider the consortium's representations strictly as per rules and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.
The judge said TANGEDCO being a state agency was under obligation to do so. Till TANGEDCO considers and passes orders on the representations after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the consortium and communicate it to the consortium, finalisation of the bid/tender cannot be done, he said.
Rejecting the argument that tender matters are not justiciable and hence the petition should not be entertained, the court said it is well settled that in awarding contracts, government and its agency has to act reasonably and fairly at all points of time.
"To that extent, the tenderer has an enforceable right in the court which is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. Therefore, it cannot be said the petition is not maintainable.
