State-owned Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation today filed an appeal in the Madras High Court against the order of a single judge restraining it from going forward with tender proceedings for the Rs 8,000-crore Udangudi supercritical thermal power project.
Justice M Sathyanarayanan had on July 1 passed an interim order restraining TANGEDCO from proceeding further on the petition filed by Indo-Chinese consortium CSEPDI-TRISHE.
CSEPDI-TRISHE had sought to quash the March 13 proceedings of TANGEDCO recording the decision to close/Lodge the tender of the 2x660 MW project and direct the Corporation to award it to them, taking into account their bid.
Also Read
Challenging this order, TANGEDCO filed the appeal against the order of Justice Sathyanarayanan.
TANGEDCO submitted the judge's order was violative of Rule 26 (3) of Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Rules,2000,which said if evaluation of tenders and award of contract was not completed in the extended validity period, all tenders shall be deemed to be invalid and fresh tenders may be called for.
It contended that the judge had also failed to see that no final relief in favour of the Consortium could be granted. A fresh tender process for the same project was inevitable, TANGEDCO said.
The Corporation submitted that the validity of bids of the consortium and BHEL had expired on March 31 so the question of accepting the consortium's bid did not arise.
It said the single judge should have dismissed the writ as infructuous.
TANGEDCO said the judge has failed to see that the Consortium's petition was not maintainable. They were seeking a writ of mandamus against Appellant Board to accept its bid. The Board had floated a tender but it was an invitation to offer and the Consortium had made a bid. Seeking a direction against the Board to accept its offer was diametrically contrary to settled principles of contract and administrative law, it argued.
It pointed out that the Board had scrapped the tender process and had decided to start afresh. Under the circumstances, it was difficult to see how the single Judge held that the consortium's rights under Article 14 were violated.
The Judge had issued the injunction on the basis there is a binding obligation on the part of the Board to accept an offer by the consortium for no better reason than that the Board had considered it, TANGEDCO submitted.
This reasoning would destroy the concept of administrative free play recognized by various binding decisions of the Supreme Court, it said and prayed that the single's judge's order be set aside.
