Bombay High Court Decides Writ Petition Challenging Bid Rejection and EMD Forfeiture in Coal Handling Tender. Petitioner challenges rejection of its bid for coal linkage materialisation by MAHAGENCO and subsequent forfeiture of EMD.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd., a company engaged in coal liaisoning, movement, handling, and delivery, challenged the rejection of its bid and the forfeiture of its Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by the Chief Engineer (Fuel Management) of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (MAHAGENCO). The dispute arose from a tender floated by Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. on 22 October 2022 for linkage materialisation and shortage minimization for coal supply from Central Coalfields Ltd. The petitioner submitted a bid of Rs.21 crores on 14 November 2022 and was informed on 11 May 2023 that its bid was accepted and a reverse auction would be conducted. However, the bid was subsequently rejected, and a notice dated 17 May 2024 was issued for EMD forfeiture. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the rejection and the forfeiture notice. The court issued Rule and, with the consent of the parties, heard the matter finally on 7 April 2025 and pronounced judgment on 9 April 2025. The full text of the judgment regarding the merits was not provided, leaving the ultimate decision and legal reasoning unknown.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the rejection of petitioner's bid and the e-mail dated 17 May 2024 regarding forfeiture of EMD are valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 157

Writ Petition No.3590 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No.17609 of 2024

2025-04-09

Alok Aradhe, CJ, M.S. Karnik, J.

2025:BHC-OS:6225-DB

Zal Andhyarujina, Ishani Khanwilkar, Munaf Virjee, Tirtha Mukherjee, Birendra Saraf, Amita Chaware, Jyoti Chavan, Nazia Sheikh, Saloni Manjrekar, Nikita Bhansali, Tejas Gupta, Roshni Bhati

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. & Anr.

Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection of petitioner's bid and forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) in a tender process for coal linkage materialisation.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the bid rejection and the e-mail dated 17 May 2024 regarding EMD forfeiture.

Filing Reason

The petitioners' bid was rejected by the Chief Engineer (Fuel Management) MAHAGENCO, and a notice for EMD forfeiture was issued.

Issues

Whether the rejection of petitioner's bid by MAHAGENCO is valid? Whether the e-mail dated 17 May 2024 regarding forfeiture of EMD is valid?

Judgment Excerpts

In this petition, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected by the Chief Engineer (Fuel Management) MAHAGENCO (Chief Engineer). The petitioners have also assailed the validity of e-mail dated 17th May 2024 by which the Chief Engineer issued a notice for forfeiture of EMD amount of the petitioner. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed along with an interim application. On the date of hearing (7 April 2025), the court issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally and judgment was pronounced on 9 April 2025.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Attempt to Murder Case Involving Firearm Assault by Constable. Court Holds That Firing AK-47 Rifle at Colleagues With Knowledge That Bullets Could Cause Death Establishes Intention Under Section 307 IPC, Regardl...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition for Non-Compliance of Order in Ashram School Location Dispute. Court holds that mere filing of an appeal against an order does not constitute willful disobedience of the order unless there is a specific d...