Disposed

Mahashakti Energy Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Aug 2021CWP/16627/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a petition challenging rejection of technical bid due to turnover discrepancy, directing respondent authorities to consider fresh representation before finalizing tender proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-authorities to consider and take a decision on petitioners representation before finalizing tender proceeding.

Mahashakti Energy Limited Vs Punjab… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-16627-2021 (O&M) Date of decision:- 26.08.2021

¶3

Mahashakti Energy Limited, Bathinda ...Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and another

¶5

...Respondent(s)

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

¶7

Present: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate,

¶8

for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶10

(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual Court)

¶11

¶12

RAVI SHANKER JHA, C.J. (ORAL)

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of its technical bid on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the turnover criteria prescribed by the respondent-authorities in the tender document.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that its turnover is more than � 100 crores which is more than 100% of the value of the contract and that its turnover in respect of energy meters is also more than � 10 crores. He further submits that in such circumstances, the authorities have rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that it does not fulfill the turnover criteria. He further submits that apparently, the said conclusion is contrary to the provisions of the qualification(s) criteria mentioned in the tender document. He further submits that no reason has been stated by the authorities as to how the petitioner does not meet the turnover criteria.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that this issue needs to be considered and clarified by the respondent-authorities themselves who are the author of the tender document and understand the implication of the relevant clause.

¶16

Notice of motion.

¶17

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.

¶18

In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation before the respondentauthorities during the course of the day, they shall consider and take a decision thereon before finalizing the tender proceeding and communicate it to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

¶19

(RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE

¶21

26.08.2021

¶22

Amodh

¶23

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶24

AMODH SHARMA 2021.08.26 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mahashakti Energy Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahashakti Energy Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdial Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Sandeep Transport Co. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Union of India and Ors. Vs Armed Forces Tribunal and Anr.

M/S H.B. Security Services Vs State of Punjab and Others

Allied Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.