Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification

10 January 2025 6:07 PM

By: sayum


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL) to re-examine the grievances raised by M/s Barjora Mining Private Limited regarding its disqualification from a tender process. The Court's order, passed by a bench comprising Justices Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal, emphasizes the importance of a thorough and transparent review process, particularly in light of the substantial financial implications involved.

Facts of the Case: The case revolves around a tender issued by HPGCL for the selection of a Mine Developer and Operator (MDO) for the Kalyanpur-Badalpara Coal Block in Jharkhand. M/s Barjora Mining Private Limited, a joint venture company based in Kolkata, submitted its bid but was subsequently declared non-responsive by the TEC. The rejection was based on the company's failure to meet specific criteria outlined in the tender notice. The petitioner challenged this decision, alleging that the rejection was arbitrary and lacked a clear rationale, especially since their bid was significantly lower than the next qualifying bid.

Court Observations and Views:

Reconsideration of Bid Disqualification: During the hearing, the Court noted that the primary issue at hand was the TEC's interpretation of the "Direct Holding Company" requirement, which the petitioner argued was incorrectly applied. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had provided all necessary documents showing compliance with the tender's joint venture requirements, including the minimum equity shareholding by each promoter. Despite this, the TEC declared the bid non-compliant without providing a detailed explanation.

Role of the TEC: The High Court emphasized the critical role of the TEC in ensuring that the tender process is conducted fairly and transparently. The bench directed the TEC to reassess the petitioner's concerns and to provide a reasoned order, ensuring that both the petitioner and the currently adjudged lowest bidder (L1), AMR India Limited, are heard before any final decision is made.

Legal Reasoning: The Court's order highlights the importance of due process in tender evaluations, particularly when the outcome has significant financial consequences. By directing the TEC to reconsider its decision, the Court underscored the necessity for transparency and accountability in public procurement processes. "This Court is sanguine that the TEC would examine the matter in the right earnest, and pass the appropriate orders, assigning reasons in support thereof," the bench remarked.

Conclusion: The Punjab and Haryana High Court's directive for re-evaluation of the tender process underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness in public procurement. The ruling is expected to set a precedent for the meticulous examination of grievances in similar cases, reinforcing the need for transparency in government contracting. The TEC's forthcoming decision, based on this re-examination, will be closely watched for its adherence to the principles of fairness and reasonableness.

Date of Decision: 22.08.2024

 

Latest Legal News