TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus ALSTOM HYDRO FRANCE & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 26-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 3 S.C.R. 863 
TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
v. 
ALSTOM HYDRO FRANCE & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2761 of 2010) 
MARCH 26, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Tenders: 
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation - Inviting tenders 
- Acceptance of bid challenged in writ petition before High 
Court - Direction by High Court for inviting fresh bids -
A 
B 
c 
, Challenged before Supreme Court - Corporation directed to 
invite fresh bids and process the matter accordingly -
D 
Objections filed - Panel of Experts appointed to examine 
objections - Objections raised to report submitted by Panel 
of Experts - HELD: A very important project like the instant 
one is being held up in a legal battle between two multinational 
companies - Contractual rights of these companies are not E 
more important than national interest - In the interest of the 
project, the Panel of Experts shall give a .JrftBh report after 
giving one more final opportunity of hearing to the parties -
The Corporation would then, without loss cj/ime take the 
decision regarding the award of contract, cYinsidering the 
report of the Panel of Experts - Once the fresh bids were 
F 
allowed to be given, the old controversies before the High 
Court would naturally become extinct and nothing survives in 
the appeals arising out of its decision -
The exercise of 
bidding before the Supreme Court was ordered with the sole 
objective of saving time and to give the transparency to the 
G 
whole exercise - It is not for this Court to award the contracts 
by accepting or rejecting the tender bids - It is exclusively for 
the Corporation to do that - Hydro-Electric Projects. 
863 
H 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
B 
c 
2761 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.6.2009 of the High 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in W.P. No. 167 of 2009. 
SLP(C) No.19890 of 2009 
T.C. (C) No. 33 of 2009. 
WITH 
G.E. Vahanvati, AG, F.S. Nariman, A. Sharan, Harish 
Salve, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Pratap, Venugopal, Surekha Raman, 
Dileep Poolakkot, Purushottam Kumar Jha (for K.J. John & 
Co.) Jai Munim, Gursharan, Anuradha Bindra, J.N. Patel, Amit 
Anand Tiwari, Abhinav Mukerji, Shiv Prakash Pandey for the 
D appearing parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
E 
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) 
Nos.15779 and 19890 of 2009. 
2. These appeals emanate out of the order passed by the 
learned Single Judge of Uttaranchal High Court. On 31st 
F August, 2007, the appellant herein invited bids for turn-key 
execution of the Tehri Pump Storage Plant, Phase-II. After the 
pre-bid conference and amendments four pre-qualification bids 
were submitted on 29th December, 2007 by respondent no.1 
- Alstom Hydro France, Patel Engineering, Sumitomo 
Corporation, Japan and Voith Seimens as leaders of their 
G respective consortia. Initially respondents 1 and 2 along with 
Sumitomo Corporation, Japan were qualified, however, 
subsequently the bid of Sumitomo Corporation was declined 
as non-responsive. Thus there were two parties in the fray, they 
being respondents 1 and 2 herein. These two gave two price 
H options. However, respondent no.1 filed a Writ Petition being 
TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. 
865 
ALSTOM HYDRO FRANCE [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 
W.P. No.167 of 2009 in the Uttarakhand High Court on two 
A 
grounds, namely, (a) that respondent no.2 was not technically 
qualified; (b) that respondent no.2 had submitted two price bids 
which was in contravention of the terms and conditions of the 
ITB. The High Court by its final judgment came to the conclusion 
that the respondent no.2 was qualified. It was further held that 
B 
there was no violation of terms and conditions of ITB. However, 
the learned Single Judge passed the following order by way of 
final directions: 
"Consequently this Court holds as follows: 
The qualifications of respondent no.2 for having done the 
work of 'erection' at Ghangzhou II seems to be in order as 
this court holds 'st:1pervision of erection' as equivalent to 
that of 'erection' and rejects the arguments of petitioner on 
c 
the eligibility of respondent no.2. Further, under the facts 
D 
of this case, if two price bids had been invited by the 
employer - one as an assignee and the other as a partner, 
then again there is nothing wrong in such an approach and 
if consequent to it two price bids have been given by 
respondent no.2- one as an assig

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