'Not Possible To Conceive Any Pre-Bid Rights For Party Which Intends To Make Offer Pursuant To Tender': Karnataka HC Dismisses L&T's Appeal
The Karnataka High Court has observed that it is not possible to conceive in law any pre-bid rights for the party which intends to make its offer pursuant to a tender.
Dismissing L&T's appeal against an Rs. 8005 crore tender process for the Sharavathy Pumped Storage and Hydroelectric project, the Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that, "There exists no right in law with the intending or prospective bidder to get his bid received and accepted. A mere floating of tender by the Tender Inviting Authority does not create any interest, much less any right for the parties who may be willing to participate in the tender process. As there is no right to get one’s bid accepted at the conclusion of the tender process, there is no right even to bid as such. A party may have right, at the best, to get considered in accordance with law is of which he may make in response to the tender invitation. That an intending bidder cannot claim by way of right to seek acceptance of its bid or to be able to enforce the bid condition in the tender as per its desire or choice, becomes an absolute proposition in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case."
Senior Counsel Udaya Holla, along with others, appeared for the appellant, while AG Shashi Kiran Shetty, along with others, appeared for the respondents.
In this case, M/s Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd., Mumbai, filed an appeal challenging a March 6 judgment by a single judge that rejected its petition. The petition had contested the 21-day bid submission period for a major project, arguing for 90-120 days as per rules.
Before the Division Bench could issue an interim order on March 11 to maintain the tender process status quo, KPCL accepted the bid of M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd, Hyderabad, based on the Single Judge's verdict.
The High Court observed that in the entire process leading to the filing of the writ petition and raising challenge against the condition of timeline to submit the bid, the appellant acted as a fence-sitter. It was further said that, "A party which does not participate in the process, would lose right to challenge the process. Such a person stands as a stranger in the matter of deriving locus to lay a challenge. Therefore, it could be argued by the respondents that the appellant having not participated, cannot challenge the tender process or the tender condition."
In light of the same, it was held that neither on factual considerations nor in law, did the appellant have any case on merits. The appeal was dismissed.
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Counsel Udaya Holla, Counsels Lomesh Kiran N, Samhita Mehta
Respondent: AG Shashi Kiran Shetty, Counsel Ajay JN, Senior Counsels KG Raghavan, K Vivek Reddy, Counsels Ajay, Vardhan Reddy
Cause Title: Larsen and Toubro Limited vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Anr.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
