B and G Hydro Private Limited Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

B&G Hydro Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Having registered office at: New No.25, Old No.10, Sir Madhavan Nair Road, Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

¶10

.. Review Applicant(s)

¶11

Vs

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

2.Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, N.P.K.R.R. Maaligai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶14

3.PPN Power Generating Company Private Limited, No.1-A, Jhaver Plaza, Third Floor, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. .. Respondent(s)

¶15

_______________ Page 1 of 6_

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114

¶18

Rev.Aplw.No.74 of 2026

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 C.P.C. to review the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by this court in W.A.No.61 of 2026.

¶20

For Applicant(s): Mr.Abishek Jenasenan

¶21

For Respondent(s):Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate For R1

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

¶24

Heard Mr.Abishek Jenasenan, learned counsel for the review applicant and Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.

¶25

2 . This review application is filed seeking to review the order

¶26

of this Court dated 19.01.2026 made in W.A.No.61 of 2026.

¶27

3 . Mr.Abishek Jenasenan, learned counsel for the review

¶28

applicant by referring to paragraph 5 of the order submitted that,

¶29

even though he has not sought to revise the bid, but however, in the order it has been recorded as though he has made such a contention.

¶30

_______________ Page 2 of 6_

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Rev.Aplw.No.74 of 2026

¶33

4 . In paragraph 5 of the order, it was observed thus;

¶34

“5. The appellant’s prayer at this stage that the bid which he has offered should be allowed to be revised, cannot be allowed by this Court.”

¶35

5 . This Court on hearing the appeal, found that already in

¶36

the tender the applicant has made a bid. In the case of availability of

¶37

more than one party, the procedure contemplated to award the contract is only through tender. As such, the tender process has been adopted.

¶38

6 . This Court by concluding that merely because one party

¶39

had opted out in the tender, the argument of the learned counsel that

¶40

the appellant be allowed to enter into a contract based on the minimum criteria fixed, ignoring the bid, would only amount to resiling/revising from the bid submitted by him, therefore had made

¶41

the observations that the same cannot be allowed.

¶42

_______________ Page 3 of 6_

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Rev.Aplw.No.74 of 2026

¶45

7 . In such circumstances, there is no error apparent which is

¶46

to be reviewed.