Petitioner challenges exclusion from power project procurement without hearing or reasons. Respondent to communicate decision. -ReverseAuction

The petitioner challenged their exclusion from participating in the procurement of 1000 M.W of RTC Power from Grid Connected RE Power Projects without reasons or a hearing. Despite seeking clarification and deferment of the e-Reverse Auction, the petitioner received no response. The court disposed of the petition, with the respondent agreeing to communicate its decision within a specified time frame and keeping the e-RA process on hold. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court in altered circumstances if necessary.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner treated as ineligible for participation in procurement of 1000 M.W of RTC Power from Grid Connected RE Power Projects - Exclusion from bidding process without reasons or opportunity for hearing - Exclusion while other bidders invited for e-RA - Representation seeking clarification and deferment unanswered - Risk of being left remediless if E-Reverse Auction not stayed.

Analysis:
The petitioner was aggrieved by being deemed ineligible for participating in the procurement of 1000 M.W of Round-the-Clock (RTC) Power from Grid Connected Renewable Energy (RE) Power Projects by the respondent under the request for selection document (RFS). The petitioner had submitted a technical and financial bid for the project, but without any reasons provided or an opportunity for a hearing, the petitioner was excluded from the bidding process.

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Jayant Mehta, argued that while the petitioner was excluded, other bidders who responded to the RFS were invited to participate in the e-Reverse Auction (e-RA) on a specific date, without extending a similar invitation to the petitioner. It was during meetings with respondent officials that the petitioner learned about being considered ineligible for the e-RA process. Despite making representations to the respondent seeking clarification and requesting a deferment of the e-RA, the petitioner did not receive any response.

Concerns were raised that if the E-Reverse Auction scheduled for a certain date was not stayed, the petitioner would be left without a remedy. In response to the petitioner's request for clarification and deferment, the respondent, through its counsel, agreed to communicate its decision to the petitioner within a specified time frame and agreed to keep the e-RA process on hold until the expiry of one week from the communication of the decision to the petitioner.

The Court, after considering the statement made by the respondent's counsel and binding the respondent to the decision communicated, disposed of the present petition and pending applications. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court in altered circumstances, maintaining the possibility of seeking further recourse if needed.

---