TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. (TANGEDCO) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR. ETC. versus CSEPDI - TRISHE CONSORTIUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 18-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 7 S.C.R. 495 
TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION 
A 
CORPORATION LTD. (TANGEDCO) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 
& MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
CSEPDI - TRISHE CONSORTIUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING 
'-c 
DIRECTOR & ANR. 
B 
(Civil Appeal Nos. I 0182-10183 of2016) 
OCTOBER 18, 2016 
(DIPAK MISRA AND SIDVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Tender - Finalization of the bid - Evaluation report by the 
Consultant - Judicial review - Held: Jn a complex fiscal evaluation, 
the court has to apply the doctrine of restraint - Financial 
computation involved, the capacity ana efficiency of the bidder and 
the perception of feasibility of completion of the project have to be 
left to the wisdom of the financial experts and consultants who have 
knowledge and skills in the field - Courts cannot really enter into 
the said realm in exercise of power of judicial review - If the courts 
would exercise power of judicial review in such a manner it is most 
likely to cause confusion and also bring jeopardy in public interest 
- Further, an aggrieved party can approach the Court at the 
appropriate stage, not when the bids are being considered~ Once 
the price bid was opened, a bidder could not have submitted 
representations on his own and sought mandamus from the Court to 
take certain aspects into consideration - On facts, Consultant 
analysed and determined the offers regard being had to the tender 
conditions - Documents were called for by the owner from both the 
qualifying bidders in a transparent manner and the same were 
considered at the time of evaluation by the Consultant - It was 
carried out before receipt of any additional document from either 
side - Thus, the Division Bench erred in adopting the approach of 
an appellate forum or authority and extended the principle of 
iudicial review to certain areas - Order of Division Bench set aside 
- Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is manifest that the Corporation in its meeting 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
held on 30.1.2014 had decided to open the price bids on both the 
bidders and thereafter the supplementary price bids were 
obtained from both the parties for the additional implications items 
H 
495 
496 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
in respect of technical deviation quoted by both parties and 
thereafter the price bids were opened on 05.2.2014. As the factual 
matrix would reveal, the price bids were evaluated by the 
Consultant. The Single Judge has adverted to price evaluation 
report submitted by the Consultant. (Para 15) (503-D-F) 
1.2 As per the Price Evaluation Report by the Consultant, 
the EPC price of the respondent No.1 was Rs.9207.264 crores 
and respondent No.2 to whom the contract was awarded was 
Rs.7762.977 crores. Thus, the difference between the two EPC 
price is Rs.1444.287 crores. The 1st respondent disputed the 
Price Evaluation Report by the Consultant on the ground that it 
wrongly loaded the sum towards the commitment fee, interest 
on management fee during me period; and interest ofguarantee 
fee during JDC period in its bid amount which had led to the 
evaluation of quoted financial charges with interest to Rs.801.18 
crores. (Para 16) (505-C-F) 
· 
1.3 The issue pertaining to correctness of Consultant's 
report has to be adjudged and scrutinized within the scope of 
limited power of judicial review in the obtaining factual score. 
The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has taken 
exception to the process adopted in the identification of Ll. It 
has referred to its order dated 19.8.2014 wherein the 1st 
respondent was granted the time to submit additional documents. 
The impugned order takes note of the fact that at that point of 
time, the Corporation had never averred that tender had been 
finalized. It has referred to the earlier order of the Division Bench 
that representations were to be considered and till then the bid 
should not be finalized. It has referred to the letter of the 
Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation dated 
20.7.2014 and opined that it appears to be a misstatement of fact. 
(Para 21) (509-B-D) 
1.4 On interest on management and guarantee fee, the stand 
of the Corporation is that the respondent no. 1 quoted Rs. 
123.9746 crores as Management fees and Rs. 392.0163 crores 
as Guarantee fee in their Price bid. There is no dispute on the 
quantum of fees. The Consultant during the evaluation have 
worked out interest@ 7.2 per annum on the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.