Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a writ petition challenging the rejection of a bid submitted in response to a Request for Selection (RfS) for a Battery Energy Storage System project. The appellant, a private energy company, had submitted its bid for a 150 MW/300 MWh standalone battery storage system. The bid was declared non-responsive, and the appellant filed a writ petition alleging violation of natural justice and erroneous rejection. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, finding no error in the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision and no breach of natural justice. On appeal, the appellant contended that its bid was wrongly rejected without communicating reasons, and that the same documents were accepted in a similar tender in Tamil Nadu. It also argued that the observation of the Single Judge regarding its unwillingness to commit to a rate was incorrect. The respondent authorities, led by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, submitted that the principal ground for rejection was the appellant's failure to furnish an undertaking from its affiliates as required under Clause 37.3 of the RfS. The court examined the tender conditions and noted that Clause 37.3 expressly required such an undertaking when financial qualification is based on affiliate capability. The appellant had relied on two affiliates but did not provide the mandated board resolutions or CEO/MD letters. The court held that non-compliance with this essential condition justified the declaration of the bid as non-responsive. Regarding natural justice, the court observed that the rejection was communicated through the e-tender portal, and the reasons were later made known; therefore, no violation had occurred. The court rejected the appellant's other contentions and upheld the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the bid as non-responsive.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Bid Responsiveness - Compliance with Tender Conditions - Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, Section 4 - The appellant failed to submit an undertaking from its affiliates as mandated by Clause 37.3 of the RfS, which required board resolutions or CEO/MD letters undertaking to contribute equity and performance guarantees if qualification was sought on the basis of affiliate financial capability. Held that the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision to declare the bid non-responsive was justified and not erroneous. (Paras 16-19) B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Communication of Reasons in E-Tendering - Not mentioned - The appellant contended that non-communication of reasons for rejection violated principles of natural justice. Held that since the rejection was reflected on the e-tender portal and reasons were subsequently disclosed, there was no violation of natural justice vitiating the process. (Paras 8-9, 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the rejection of the appellant's bid as non-responsive; Whether there was violation of principles of natural justice in not communicating reasons for rejection; Whether the appellant's bid was correctly rejected for non-compliance with Clause 37.3 of the RfS.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The court upheld the rejection of the appellant's bid as non-responsive due to non-compliance with Clause 37.3 of the RfS and found no violation of natural justice.
Law Points
- compliance with tender conditions
- no violation of natural justice
- bid responsiveness determined by Tender Evaluation Committee
- non-furnishing of affiliate undertaking renders bid non-responsive
- clause 37.3 of RfS
- no requirement to communicate detailed reasons for rejection in e-tender process
