Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

Facts

Larsen and Toubro Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the last date for submission of bid documents for the Sharavathy Pumped Storage Project, issued by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (the respondent). The initial notice inviting tender was published on January 9, 2024. A subsequent notification on January 17, 2024, granted 30 days for bid preparation. The petitioner requested 90 days. The tender was published on February 2, 2024, with a submission deadline of February 21, 2024. A pre-bid meeting was held on February 14, 2024, where bidders sought more time. On February 17, 2024, the respondent issued a corrigendum extending the deadline to February 23, 2024, and also provided a geotechnical study report. The petitioner argued this timeline was unreasonable and arbitrary.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the tender conditions as they had not participated in the bidding process. Citing judgments from the High Court of Calcutta and the Supreme Court in Airport Authority of India vs. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) & Others, the Court emphasized that a person who has not participated in the bidding process cannot challenge the tender conditions. The Court found that the petitioner's argument regarding the statutory aberration under Rule 17 failed because the respondent had recorded reasons in writing for the reduction of time, complying with sub-rule (2) of Rule 17. The Court reiterated that a tender inviting authority has the liberty to choose its own method, and judicial review is permissible only in the decision-making process, which the petitioner, by not participating, could not challenge. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit and the petitioner's non-participation was a threshold bar to entertaining the petition. The Court noted that no tender inviting authority can be directed to hold a tender until a tenderer meets eligibility or prepares for participation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the stipulated timeline for bid submission, as modified by the corrigendum, is unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, whether Clause 17 of the Notice Inviting Tender should be set aside? 2. Whether there is compliance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000? 3. Whether the petitioner, having not participated in the tender process, can maintain a writ petition challenging the tender conditions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the prescribed timeline of 19 or 21 days is contrary to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000, which mandates a minimum period for tender submission. They argued that a project of this magnitude requires at least 90 days for preparation and that the hurried process was intended to favour specific tenderers, disabling the petitioner from participating. They sought an extension of time up to May 2, 2024. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner has not participated in the tender and lacks the eligibility to undertake the project, specifically in electro-mechanical and hydro-mechanical works. They alleged the petitioner's intention was mala fide to stall the project. The respondent asserted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 permits the reduction of the minimum period with recorded reasons, which were provided in writing. They also pointed out that three bidders had already submitted bids, and the petitioner's challenge was based on an alleged violation of Rule 17, despite the existence of reasons for time reduction.