Page 1 1

Reportable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10182-10183 OF 2016

(@ SLP(C) Nos. 28959-28960 of 2015)

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution …Appellant(s)

Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) Rep. By

Its Chairman & Managing Director

and Anr. Etc.

Versus

CSEPDI – Trishe Consortium, Rep. By its …Respondent(s)

Managing Director & Anr.

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10184-10185 OF 2016

(@ SLP Nos. 30098-30099 of 2015)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Ltd (for short ‘the Corporation’) vide notification

dated 06.05.2013 floated a tender for setting up of two units of

Page 2 2

660 MW Ennore SEZ Supercricitcal Thermal Power Project at

Ash Dyke of NCTPS, Chennai wherein four bidders including

the respondents herein participated. However, two bidders out

of four were disqualified as they failed to meet the Bid

Qualification Requirements (BQR) as a result of which bids of

Consortium of Trishe Energy Infrastructure Services Private

Limited (CSEPDI) and Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd (BHEL) were

taken up for consideration. Prior to the opening of the price

bid, CSEPDI and BHEL submitted supplementary price bids

on 05.02.2014. Price bids were opened on 05.02.2014 by the

appellant in the presence of the representatives of the

respondents, the qualified bidders.

3.The uncurtaining of facts would depict that the

1

st

respondent sent series of representations dated 16.06.2014,

17.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 08.07.2014 to the appellant

highlighting various aspects of the bid and the relevance of

para (viii) of Clause 29.0 of the “Instructions to Bidders” (ITB)

which also deals with the rejection of bids of the tenderer

whose past performance/vendor rating is not satisfactory.

Page 3 3

Since the appellant paid no heed to the request made by the

respondent No.1, it filed W.P. No. 19247 of 2014 seeking issue

of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellant to consider the

representations and comply with Tamil Nadu Transparency In

Tenders Act, 1998 (for short, “the TTIT Act”). An undertaking

was given before the learned Single Judge by the learned

Advocate General that post-bid representations submitted by

the respondent No.1 will be duly considered while finalizing

the tenders and appropriate orders will be passed in

accordance with the tender specifications and the TTIT Act

and rules framed thereunder and in terms of the said

undertaking, learned Single Judge vide order dated

31.07.2014 directed the appellant to consider and pass orders

on the representations of the appellant herein after affording

them an opportunity of personal hearing and directed that till

such orders are passed, the tender should not be finalised.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed writ

appeal W.A. No. 1065 of 2014 before the Division Bench

which, by judgment and order dated 19.08.2014, disposed of

Page 4 4

the writ appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single

Judge only to the extent that affording of opportunity of

personal hearing to the person was impermissible having not

contemplated under the Rules (for short, “the rules”) and

further permitted the respondent No.1 to submit additional

documents raising all its objections and the appellant was

directed to pass an order and communicate the same to the

respondents, CSEPDI and BHEL. However, the Division

Bench did not modify the direction of the learned Single Judge

which was to the effect that till a decision was taken on

representations of the 1

st

respondent, the bid shall not be

finalised.

5.After the disposal of the writ appeal, the respondent No.1

sent its representation on 25.08.2014 along with necessary

documents which was rejected by the appellant vide its

communication dated 27.09.2014. The legal propriety of the

said rejection was called in question by way of writ petition

W.P. No. 26762 of 2014 seeking quashment of the same and

further restraining the owner from taking steps to finalise the

Page 5 5

tender. During the hearing of the writ petition, a copy of letter

dated 27.09.2014 awarding the contract to BHEL, respondent

No. 2 herein, was brought on record. It was mentioned therein

with regard to price negotiation meetings with the respondent

No. 2. The respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 1.10.2014 to

the appellant, highlighting the arbitrariness, anomalies and

inconsistencies in its reasoning and the mala-fide intent in the

matter of evaluation of the bid submitted by it. However, the

appellant by letter dated 10.10.2014, informed the 1

st

respondent that the subject tender had been finalised and

awarded to BHEL.

6.The letter dated 27.9.2014 awarding the contract to

respondent No. 2 and letter dated 10.10.2014 were assailed by

the respondent No.1 by filing W.P. No. 27529 of 2014 for

annulments of the letters and further for issue of directions to

the Corporation to determine the award of the tender strictly

in terms of the Tender/Bid document and taking into account

the bid of respondent No.1 and that of BHEL, the respondent

No.2 herein.

Page 6 6

7.The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition

primarily based on the perusal of notes in the files containing

the Consultant Report dated 30.05.2014 and on that basis

opined that the conduct of process of evaluation of the tenders

did not appear to be arbitrary, capricious or unfair; and that

price bids of the bidders had been evaluated as per the

parameters indicated in the tender notification by an

independent consultant who was selected as per the Board

Resolution that was within the knowledge of both the bidders.

The reasoning of the learned Single Judge basically hinged on

the Consultant’s Report that had determined that the

respondent No.2 herein was L1 and, therefore, the decision of

the Corporation in treating BHEL as L1 and awarding the

contract was neither arbitrary nor malafide.

8.Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the

respondent No.1 preferred writ appeals before the Division

Bench. The Division Bench took note of the various pleas

raised by the respondent No.1 including violation of the

statutory provisions, arbitrariness, adoption of unfair and

Page 7 7

non-transparent procedure, erroneous delineation of the

consultant’s report by the learned Single Judge and

non-consideration of public interest.

9.The Corporation, in its turn, contended before the

Division Bench that there was no violation of procedure and

the award of the contract was not amenable to judicial review

in the obtaining factual matrix and any interference would

only delay the execution of the work. It was also urged that

Tender Accepting Authority (TAA) had accepted the lowest

tender and negotiations were held only with lowest bidder;

that Clause 25.4 of the Instruction to Bidders did not permit

the bidder to change the substance of the bids after the bids

were opened; that though the respondent No.1 had offered

lower rate on interest, the original interest rate offered was not

in accordance with tender terms, for as per clause 14.0(d)(5)

the rate of interest quoted should be fixed, whereas the

CSEPDI had not specified the fixed rate of interest; that there

was no perversity or arbitrariness in the decision taken as per

the terms of the tender, prevalent banking practice and the

Page 8 8

Term Sheet given by the lender; that the Consultant was

appointed pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 28.01.2012

who participated in all pre-bid and post-bid meetings and the

minutes had been signed by all the parties and the consultant

and, therefore, CSEPDI was very much aware of appointment

of the consultant and the role played by consultant could

neither be criticised nor ignored.

10.The 2

nd

Respondent herein contended that respondent

No.1 lacked credibility to make any allegation against it; that

design was the core area of leader of the consortium and they

have no experience in India insofar as supercritical Thermal

Power Projects are concerned; and that the work was under

progress and they had expended substantial amount.

11.After hearing the rival contentions, the Division Bench

placed reliance on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa

1

and

observed that the approach of the owner was unfair in the

tendering process. It further analysed the scheme of Section

1

(2007) 14 SCC 517

Page 9 9

10 of the TTIT Act and held that the Tender Accepting

Authority (TAA) has a role to cause objective evaluation of the

tenders. Referring to Section 10(6) of the TTIT Act, it held that

the Corporation had not complied with the said provision and

it was a case of procedural impropriety, unfair approach and

arbitrariness. The appellate Bench referred to the authority in

Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development

Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

2

and declined to accept

the stand of the Corporation by opining that reasons for

rejection of 1

st

respondent’s representations could not be

treated as reasons for rejection of its bid and hence, the

decision making process was flawed and in breach of Section

10(7) of the Act. It further held that in the “Tender Bulletin”,

absence of reasons for acceptance of tender, no statement of

evaluation of tenders and no comparative statement of tenders

received and, decision thereon was in clear violation of the

requirements of Section 6(1) read with Section 10 of the TTIT

Act and Rule 30(3) of the TTIT Rules. On the interest

2

(1990) 3 SCC 280

Page 10 10

component and commitment fee, the Division Bench held that

the approach was wholly arbitrary and the intention was to

oust the respondent No.1, for the evaluation process adopted

was meant to suit one and reject the other. It further held that

the process adopted and the decision taken by the owner was

arbitrary, unfair, irrational, biased and mala fide and did not

serve the larger public interest. In view of the said analysis,

the Division Bench allowed the appeals and directed the

Corporation to evaluate the price bid of the respondents in the

light of its findings and taking into consideration all relevant

parameters including the representations/documents

submitted by respondent No. 1 and to record detailed reasons

for the decision and communicate the same to the respondent

No.1 so as to comply with the requirement of the provisions of

the TTIT Act and TTIT Rules and various decisions of this

Court.

12.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the

corporation and the successful bidder, by way of special leave,

have preferred separate appeals.

Page 11 11

13.We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney

General and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for

the appellant-BHEL and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned

senior counsel for the appellant-Corporation, and Mr. Kapil

Sibal, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.

Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel for the respondent

No. 2.

14.It is apposite to note that in course of hearing it has been

opined that the singular issue that is required to be addressed

is “whether the Evaluation Report dated 30

th

May, 2014 by the

Consultant, is prima facie erroneous, requiring interference

within the parameters of judicial review”. Such a singular

point was required to be focused as Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,

learned Attorney General appearing for BHEL and Mr.

Subramonium Prasad learned senior counsel appearing for the

Corporation had submitted as the subsequent offers either by

BHEL or by the 1

st

respondent need not be considered. At that

juncture, Mr. Kapil Sibal learned senior counsel appearing for

the 1

st

respondent, the contesting party, had submitted that

Page 12 12

the Consultant’s Report would graphically exposit that the

respondent No.1 was entitled to be declared as L-1 even if it is

scrutinized within the limited parameters of the judicial

review. The Court had directed for handing over the

Consultant’s Report to the learned counsel appearing for the

1

st

respondent. In view of the aforesaid submission, the

opinion expressed on other issues by the learned Single Judge

or by the Division Bench need not be adverted to.

15.On a perusal of the facts brought on record, it is manifest

that the Corporation in its meeting 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 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 learned Single Judge has adverted to

price evaluation report submitted by the Consultant. Certain

Page 13 13

paragraphs from the report of the Consultant that were

reproduced by him are as follows:-

“4.0 Evaluation

4.1 BHEL

BHEL has arranged finance from M/s. Power Finance

Corporation of India.

They are arranged to finance 75% of the total cost as

debt at an interest rate of 12.25% p.a.

Attached Annexures 1 to 5 indicate the methodology

adopted in calculating the various components

required for evaluation like IDC-Debt, IDC-Equity,

IDC-UF Fess, Debt Repayment Schedule etc.

4.2 CSEPDI – TRISHE

CSEPDI-TRISHE has arranged finance from M/s.

ICBC, China.

They have arranged a finance 85% of the total cost as

debt at an interest rate of 7.2% p.a.

Attached Annexures 6 to 12 indicate the methodology

adopted in calculating the various components

required for evaluation like IDC-Debt, IDC-Equity,

IDC-UF Fess, Debt Repayment Schedule etc.

5.0 Evaluated Lower Cost

BHEL CSEPDI-TR

ISHE

All figures

in Rs.

(Crores)

All figures

in Rs.

(Crores)

Capacity 1320 MW 1320 MW

Page 14 14

A Total EPC cost

excluding VAT

7762.977 9207.264

B EPC Debt 75% 5822.233 7826.174

C EPC Equity 25% 1940.744 1381.090

D IDC Debt 12.25%1295.079 1228.378

E EPC Debt

Including IDC

(B + D)

7117.311 9054.552

F Upfront Fees

Including

Interest

8.925 801.180

G Total Debt (E

+ F)

7126.237 9855.732

H Interest on

Equity

14% 509.597 456.606

I Total Equity

(C + H)

2450.341 1837.695

J Total Project

Cost (G + I)

9576.578 11693.427

K Total Cost per

MW

7.255 8.859

L PV – Debt 7553.364 8464.318

M PV – Equity 2809.403 2106.984

N Total PV 10362.767 10271.302

O PV Cost per

MW

` 7.851 7.781

P Loading for

Deficiency

10.287 173.229

Q Total (N+P) 10373.054 10444.531

R Evaluated Bid

Price per MW

7.858 7.913

Paragraphs 4.0 and 5.0 of the “Price Evaluation

Report” submitted by the Consultant, which I have

extracted above, show that the Consultant took into

account only the interest rate of 12.25% per annum

for the debt component arranged by BHEL from the

Power Finance Corporation of India. The Consultant

did not take note of the reduced rate namely 12.15,

Page 15 15

subsequently offered by BHEL, for arriving at the

conclusion that the “Evaluated Bid Price” of BHEL was

the lowest.”

16.There is no dispute that 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 1

st

respondent disputed the Price Evaluation Report by the

Consultant on the ground that it wrongly loaded the sum

towards (a) the commitment fee, (b) interest on management

fee during IDC period; and (c) interest of guarantee fee during

IDC period in its bid amount which had led to the evaluation

of quoted financial charges with interest to Rs.801.18 crores.

17.As regards the commitment fee, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the contention of the respondent No.1

that since commitment fee was the fee to be charged on the

unutilised amount of the loan meaning thereby if the appellant

failed to draw the loan amount as undertaken, then only the

commitment fee would be charged and, therefore, the

Page 16 16

determination after addition of the same was without any

rationale as the respondent No.1 had quoted in the

‘Calculation Sheet for Financial Cost’ in the supplementary bid

commitment fee to the tune of Rs.164.72 crores which was to

be charged @ 1% p.a. on accrued drawals and if no

commitment fee was required to be paid, the respondent No.1

should have mentioned the same to be nil or zero. To show

that the commitment fee is a part of the financial charges,

learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to clause 14(d)

6 of the Instruction to Bidders under the tender, which reads

as follows:-

“6.Financing Charges : All financing charges of any

nomenclature relating to financing of the project

including but not limited to Finders Fees,

Commitment Fees, Arrangement Fees, Management

Fees, Up Front Fees, Syndication Fees, Service

Charges, Guarantee Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if

any should be clearly outlined in the Financing Term

Sheet. No variation in Financing Charges is permitted

during the tenor of loan.

3.37“Financing Cost” means all financing charges of

any nomenclature relating to financing of the project

including but not limited to Finders Fees, Arranger’s

Fees, Commitment Fees, Management Fees, Up Front

Page 17 17

Fees, Syndication Fees, Service Charges, Guarantee

Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if any.”

18.At this juncture we may also refer to clause 3.37 of

Section 2 that deals with the General Terms and Conditions of

the Contract. It defines the “Financing Cost” as follows:-

“Financing Cost” means all financing charges of any

nomenclature relating to financing of the project

including but not limited to Finders Fees, Arranger’s

Fees, Commitment Fees, Management Fees, Up Front

Fees, Syndication Fees, Service Charges, Guarantee

Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if any”.

19.Clause 14 that deals with the conditions for a Binding

Debt Financing Term Sheet, which needs to be reproduced in

entirety. It reads as follows:-

“14.0 Conditions for a Binding Debt Financing

Term Sheet

Bidder shall enter into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) with the Lender for the Debt

Financing agreeing to provide Financing for the

Project and making payments directly to the Bidder

based on bills certified by TANGEDCO as per the

terms of payment clause.

The MoU shall be submitted by the Bidder along with

their offer for signing of the loan agreement.

The Bidder shall be responsible for arranging the

required financing and achieving Financial Closure of

the project within 4 (Four months) from the date of

Letter of Intent (LoI).

Page 18 18

a. The Bidder and Lender shall furnish a joint

undertaking to fulfill the commitment made in the

offer for Debt Financing arrangement from the Lender

subject to due diligence.

TANGEDCO will furnish the following documents to

the lender for processing of Debt Financing to the

successful bidder.

1. Profile of TANGEDCO

2. Audited Balance Sheet of TANGEDCO for the last

three financial years

3. MOU entered between TANGEDCO & MMTC for

long term supply of coal of this project.

4. Tariff order for sale of power.

5. Copy of DPR

b. It shall be understood that the Financing Term

Sheet shall be based on preliminary appraisal of the

project jointly by the Bidder and the Lender satisfying

themselves on the project financial viability.

c. It shall be understood that the Award of Contract to

the Bidder is contingent upon successful Financial

Closure based on the Terms and Conditions provided

in the Financing Term Sheet and in the event of the

Financial Closure does not materialize due to reasons

attributable to the Bidder or the Lender or in the

event of withdrawal by the Lender from the Project,

the Bidder will forfeit the security deposit.

d. The Term Sheet should be full and complete with

all material terms of financing including but not

limited to:

1. Loan Amount : At least 75% of the Total EPC Cost +

100% of Interest during construction and Financing

Cost.

2. Currency of Loan: INR/USD/Euro or a combination

thereof.

Page 19 19

3. Tenor of the Loan : From the date of first drawal of

the Loan upto 6 months from COD of the 1

st

or 2

nd

unit whichever is later and 15 years thereafter.

4. Rate of Interest.

5. Fixed Rate of Interest till the entire tenor of the

loan after taking into account the hedged cost.

6. Financing Charges : All financing charges of any

nomenclature relating to financing of the project

including but not limited to Finders Fees,

Commitment Fees, Arrangement Fees, Management

Fees, Up Front Fees, Syndication Fees, Service

Charges, Guarantee Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if

any should be clearly outlined in the Financing Term

Sheet. No variation in Financing Charges is permitted

during the tenor of loan.

7. Terms and conditions for draw down schedule.

8. Moratorium for Repayment of Installment, Interest

and Financing Charges: All cash outflow obligation of

TANGEDCO towards repayment of Installment,

Interest and Financing Charges should be in INR

(fully hedged) for the entire tenure of the loan and the

repayment will commence only after 6months from

the date of COD of later unit.

9. Repayment Period: 15 years post IDC and

moratorium in 60 equated quarterly installments

10. Project Cash Flows and Installment Repayments

statement should be submitted and will form part of

the Financing proposal. The Bidder shall indicate

Draw Down Schedule of finance to match the supply

and erection schedule of project activities.

11. Equity requirements and related covenants.

12. Security: Against Security the following can be

made available by TANGEDCO

a. Hypothecation of all 100% Project Assets

b. Government Guarantee for the repayment of loan

Page 20 20

13. Validity period of the Term Sheet will be

co-terminus with the validity of the bid.”

20.The stand of the respondent as regards the interpretation

of Clause 14(d) 6 is that it only outlines all fees, but it does not

mean that every such fee is to be loaded for evaluating the bid

to determine L1 and no commitment fee can be loaded for

such evaluation. It is also put forth that there can be no

question of loading interest on commitment fee.

21.As has been stated earlier, 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 L1. It has referred to its order

dated 19.8.2014 wherein the 1

st

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

Page 21 21

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.

22.Be it stated that the Division Bench has posed two

questions:-

“(i) Whether interest offered by appellant is vague; and

(ii) Whether the reduction of interest from 7.2% to

6.2% should be accepted.”

23.While dealing with the said issue, the Division Bench has

referred to the publication in the tender bulletin stating about

the decision on tender:-

“1. Name of the Tender: Chief Engineer/Civil/Projects

& Environment, Inviting Officer, 3

rd

Floor, NPKRR

Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. a) Name of the Project/Detail of Purchase & Works:

Establishment of coal based 2 x 660 MW Ennore SEZ

Supercritical Thermal Power Project in the ash dyke of

existing NCTPS under Single EPC cum Debt Finance

basis. Vayalurvillage, Thiruvallur District, Tamil

Nadu.

Page 22 22

Sl.

No

Details Tender

Value

Decision on

Tender

1

2

M/s.

Bharat

Heavy

Electricals

Limited,

BHEL

House,

Sirifort,

New Delhi

– 110 049

Consortium

of Central

Southern

China

Electric

Power

Design –

Ms. Trishe,

668, Minz

Road,

Ughan,

China – 430

071

7840.08

7 Crores

&

Lender:

Power

Finance

Corporat

ion

Limited

Rate of

Interest:

12.25%

9716.59

74

Crores &

Lender:

Industri

al &

Commer

ce Bank

of China

Rate of

Interest:

7.2%

(USD @

Rs.

59.26 at

SBI Bill

selling

rate)

Out of four bids

received for this

work and among

the qualified two

bidders,

negotiation was

called for & held

with the lowest

bidder viz

M/s.BHEL. After

negotiation,

tender value of

Rs. 7788 Crores,

Rate of Interest at

12.15% was

accepted by the

Chief

Engineer/Projects

and order for

acceptance of the

tender issued

vide this office

issue

Lr.No.CE/P/SE/

M/EE-10/E/File.

2x660MW Ennore

SEZ

STPP/D.No.60/dt

.27.09.2014

Page 23 23

Finally, M/s. BHEL/New Delhi offered bid for Rs.

7788 Crores was accepted by the Chief

Engineer/Projects/Chennai and order for acceptance

of the tender was issued vide this officer

Lr.No.CE/P/SE/M/EE-10/ E/File.2x660MW Ennore

SEZ STPP/D.No.60/dt. 27.09.2014.”

24.Thereafter, the Division Bench has recorded as follows:-

“31.3 While it is the plea of the appellant that fixed

rate of 7.2-7.5% per annum or LIBOR floating rate

has been quoted by them, it is the case of the learned

Advocate General that Clause 12.1 of the Instructions

to Bidders stated that interest is to be quoted at fixed

rate and it is not subject to change, and since the

interest quoted is variable, it is not possible to

evaluate the bid.

31.4 It is seen from the records, that subsequently,

based on a query from the first respondent, the

appellant had confirmed that it would be fixed rate of

interest at 7.2%. the same was also confirmed in the

Repayment Schedule and the same rate of interest

was taken into consideration by the Consultant in his

report dated 30.5.2014. He did not find fault with the

rate of interest. It is to be noted that the Term Sheet

was submitted during July, 2013 and tender was

evaluated in the year 2014. The contention of

vagueness in rate of interest does not appeal to us.

When the Consultant’s report dated 30.5.2014 is

accepted by TANGEDCO for the purpose of

evaluation, it has to be accepted for all purposes,

though we have reservation on the Consultant’s

report dated 30.5.2014. There is, therefore, no

vagueness in the rate of interest quoted at 7.2%.

31.5 The second issue relates to the reduction of rate

of interest. It is not in dispute that various meetings

were held between the appellant and the TANGEDCO.

Page 24 24

The learned Advocate General states that the

Consultant was appointed based on the 21

st

Board

Meeting on 28.1.2012 and the Consultant

participated in all pre-bid and post-bid meetings and

minutes were signed by all parties, including BHEL

and the appellant. He stated that the appellant was

aware of the Consultant’s appointment and his role.

This only fortifies the fact that there have been series

of consultation between both the bidders. The finding

of the learned Single Judge that the appellant acted

on inside information is demolished by the stand of

the learned Advocate General as above. The

insinuation has no basis.

31.6 Coming to the issue of reduction of rate of

interest, taking into consideration the prevailing

market rate, the appellant offered to reduce the rate of

interest from 7.2% to 6.2% on 5.6.2014, even prior to

any form of litigation. When such an offer was given

by the appellant the tender was not accepted in terms

of Section 10(6) of the Act. To recapitulate, what has

happened earlier is that the writ petition in W.P. No.

19247 of 2014 was filed on 17.7.2014, subsequent to

the offer made on 5.6.2014. The first interim order

was passed on 18.7.2014. The second interim order

was passed on 31.7.2014. The Division Bench passed

an order on 19.8.2014. At that point of time, there

was never a statement by the TANGEDCO that L1 was

identified and discussion was going on. We have also

clearly stated that the statement of the

Chairman-cum-Managing Director of TANGEDCO that

the representations of the appellant will be duly

considered by the Board of Directors while finalizing

the tender and appropriate orders will be passed

strictly in accordance with the tender specifications

and by following the provisions of TTIT Act and TTIT

Rules.

Page 25 25

31.7 Therefore, the issue relating to reduction of rate

of interest should have been considered. This

reasoning of ours is also based on the fact that we

have clearly held that the third respondent could not

be ascertained as L1 on 2.6.2014 as per the

statement of TANGEDCO or on 30.5.2014 as per the

finding of the learned Single Judge. Once there is no

identification of L1, TANGEDCO is bound to consider

the reduction in rate of interest of both the appellant

in their offer dated 5.6.2014 and that of the third

respondent dated 27.6.2014, reducing the rate of

interest from 12.25% to 12.15%.

31.8 Even otherwise, by virtue of the power under

Clause 25.3 of the Instructions to bidders, which

states that “The Purchaser reserves the right to relax

or waive any of the conditions of this Specification in

the best interests of the TANGEDCO”, the TANGEDCO

could have considered such reduced rate of interest

offered by the appellant and the third respondent.”

25.With regard to commitment fee, the analysis of the

Division Bench is worth referring to:-

“It clearly states that Commitment Fee is only on the

cancelled portion of the loan. That apart, even as per

the Drawdown Schedule, the fee is to be paid only if

the loan amount is not drawn by the 18

th

, 30

th

and

42

nd

month. Moreover, the appellant in the letters

dated 13.6.2014,16.6.2014 and 17.6.2014, clarified

that Commitment Fee is only on the unused credit

line and that there shall be no Commitment Fee if the

loan amount is fully utilized as per the Drawdown

Schedule. All these representations sent by the

appellant were not considered by TANGEDCO, despite

there being a specific direction by the Division Bench

of this Court to consider the same. It is a clear case

Page 26 26

of arbitrariness in approach and intended to oust the

appellant. This act of the TANGEDCO is nothing but

a case of malafide in evaluation process to suit one

and reject the other.”

26.While dealing with the consultant’s report, the Division

Bench has proceeded to state thus:-

“33.3 Even as per the Consultant’s Report the

difference between the bid of the appellant and the

third respondent is around Rs.71 Crores. That being

the case, if either the Commitment Fee of Rs.156.184

Crores or the interest on Management Fee and

Guarantee Fee for the 36 month construction period

is not loaded on the appellant, it will have a bearing

on deciding which one of the two is the lowest bid.

Assuming the Consultant’s report is of any value,

such report without considering the relevant material

is of no use. The approach to add these figures

without taking note of the representations and

additional particulars/documents is, therefore,

arbitrary and tainted in bias. This is in violation of

the Division Bench judgment as well as the orders of

the learned Single Judge in the first round of

litigation.”

27.And again:-

“The financial implication in respect of two tenderers

has been specified by the Consultant. The issue is

what factors mean and how it impacts the bid. We

find that the Repayment Schedule submitted by the

appellant with regard to interest on management fee

and guarantee fee during IDC period is an accepted

document by the Consultant. If nothing more is to be

paid beyond that and that is clarified in the course of

representation in clear terms, we fail to understand as

Page 27 27

to how this amount could be included in the cost

when there is no implication. The Consultant, as we

have held, did not have the benefit of considering the

representation and other documents on the financial

implications in this issue. His opinion is therefore not

based on relevant document/representation. This we

have held is not in conformity with the order of the

learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation,

which was confirmed by the Division Bench.

Withholding such a factor and to obtain an evaluation

from the Consultant loading the bid of the appellant is

clearly a case of bias. It is an unreasonable approach

and an unfair gesture which crumbles the spirit of

transparent tender.”

“33.6 We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that

the first respondent had erroneously added interest

on Management Fee and Guarantee Fee when there is

none and there is no ambiguity or vagueness. Once

the appellant has indicated in the representation, in

clear terms, as to how it should be treated, in the light

of the order of the Division Bench, which TANGEDCO

accepted to consider the bid of the appellant, the first

respondent ought not to have loaded this amount on

the basis of the Consultant’s Report. In all fairness,

the Tender Accepting Authority of the first respondent

should have excluded this amount, if both the bidders

are to be treated on the touchstone of fairness and on

the doctrine of level-playing field. This becomes

necessary because the entire tender is tested on the

larger public interest, that is to say, the

implementation of the project in a time bound manner

where cost is another important factor to be

considered in the decision making. In a Welfare

State, public authority cannot decide arbitrarily to

throw away such an offer which they agreed to

consider in the course of judicial proceedings, which

we have referred to above. These factors, namely,

Page 28 28

adding interest on Management Fee and Guarantee

Fee, have to be eschewed for the purpose of

considering the bid of the appellant, otherwise, it will

suffer from the vice of unreasonableness and

irrationality.”

28.Eventually, it was directed as follows:-

“The TANGEDCO is directed to evaluate the

appellant’s price bid along with the bid of the third

respondent, in the light of our findings as above and

also taking into consideration in all required

parameters and the clarifications submitted by the

appellant in its various representations, as directed

by the Single Judge in the order dated 31.7.2014 and

that of the Division Bench in its order dated

19.8.2014, afresh, at the earliest.”

29. Before this Court, the consultant’s report is criticized by

the 1

st

respondent stating thus:-

“2.3The Consultant has made the following errors in

the calculation of the said ‘Upfront Fees Including

Interest’ in respect of CSEPDI’s bid:

Error 1 : Included Commitment Fees

Error 2 : Calculated and loaded interest on (a.)

Guarantee Fee, (b.) Management Fee and (c.)

Commitment Fee during the construction period of 36

months, i.e., IDC (Interest During Construction)

2.4In 5.0 Item F – ‘Upfront Fees Including Interest’,

the Consultant has loaded BHEL with Rs.8.925

Crores and CSEPDI with Rs. 801.180 Crores. The

break-up of this Rs. 801.180 Crores in the

Consultant’s Report is as follows:

Page 29 29

a. Guarantee Fee : Rs. 371.743 Crores

b. Management Fee: Rs. 117.393 Crores

c. Commitment Fee: Rs. 156.184 Crores

d. Interest for 36 months

on a,b,c (Rs. 127.613 Crores)

e. Interest from 37

th

to 42

nd

month:Rs.155.860

Crores on a,b, & c (Rs. 28.247 Crores)

Total: Rs. 801.180 Crores

2.4.1 There is no issue on entries a. and b. above

2.4.2 The issue is with regard to entries c. and d.

above.

2.4.3. As regards c., no Commitment Fee can be

loaded, for the reasons explained below.

2.4.4 As regards d., no interest can be loaded for the

construction period of 36 months on Guarantee Fee

and Management Fee, for the reasons explained

below. The question of interest on Commitment Fee

does not arise at all because no Commitment Fee can

be loaded in the first place for evaluation of CSEPDI’s

bid.

2.4.5 e. above will stand reduced as it depends on c.

and d.

2.5If the Consultant had correctly evaluated

CSEPDI’s price bid by not including Commitment Fee

and Interest on Guarantee Fee, Management Fee and

Commitment Fee for the construction period of 36

months, then CSEPDI would be L1 by Rs. 171.600

Crores. Neither TANGEDCO nor BHEL have disputed

this fact.

x x x x x x

2.7 The Consultant has confused Commitment Fee

with an Upfront Fee. Commitment Fee, as stated

Page 30 30

above, is a contingency fee payable if the scheduled

drawal does not take place. An Upfront Fee is levied

by the lender as a definite fee without any

contingency. This is made clear by PFC (BHEL’s

lender) letter dated 30-04-2015 showing Commitment

Fee and Upfront Fee as distinct alternatives. The

Consultant has loaded BHEL with Upfront Fee. The

Consultant has erroneously treated Commitment Fee

as an Upfront Fee for CSEPDI and has in fact applied

the label Upfront Fee in Item F”.

30.With regard to the commitment fee, various financial

nuances have been stated. We think it apt to reproduce some

of them:-

“2.8.3 When the earmarked funds are drawn, the

interest agreed is payable. When the earmarked

funds are not drawn, the interest is not payable but

instead the Commitment Fee has to be paid on the

amount not drawn.

2.8.4 CSEPDI’s Term Sheet clearly mentions that

the Commitment Fee is payable on the cancelled

portion of the loan.

2.8.5 The term ‘Accrued Drawal’ refers to the

amount accured and available for drawal, but not

drawn.

2.8.6 Commitment Fee is therefore only a

contingent fee leviable if the funds are not drawn as

per the Drawdown Schedule. It is more in the nature

of a penalty in the event of a default by the borrower

TANGEDCO and is payable by TANGEDCO. This

cannot be added to the project cost for evaluation of

the price bid.

x x x x x x

Page 31 31

2.8.8 The Repayment Schedule sets out the

entire amount to be paid by TANGEDCO in the form

of 48 Equated Quarterly Installments (EQI) starting

from the 43

rd

months of the date of financial closure

for 12 years. If there is one document to be termed as

most important to evaluate the Price Bid, it is this

Repayment Schedule. The Repayment Schedule is

part of the Price Bid and is absolutely crucial as it

caps the amount TANGEDCO has to pay. Not a single

rupee needs to be paid over and above the amounts

mentioned in the Repayment Schedule.

2.8.9 The EQI in the Repayment Schedule is

based on the figure of Rs. 15,038.2914 Crores, which

comprises of interest Rs. 5,025.3628 Crores on the

Net Loan amount of Rs. 10,012.9286 Crores. The

components of this Net Loan amount are:

a. Loan amount

(85% of Total EPC

Cost of 9709.3822 Crores) : Rs. 8252.9748/-

b. Interest at 7.2% p.a. on the

above loan amount during

the Construction Period of 36 : Rs. 896.2032/-

months

c. Guarantee Fee : Rs. 392.0163/-

d. Management Fee : Rs. 123.7946/-

Moratorium Period interest

for 37

th

to 42

nd

month

(interest at 7.2% p.a. for

6 months on the total of

a,b,c and d. above) : Rs. 347.9396/-

Total : Rs.10,012.9286/-*

Page 32 32

*The Price Bid submitted by CSEPDI was Rs.

9709.3822 Crores and the above calculations were on

that basis. However the admitted position is that of

this sum, Rs. 509.339 Crores was disallowed by

TANGEDCO and the Price Bid was arrived at

Rs.9207.264 Crores. The Consultant has also

evaluated CSEPDI’s bid at Rs. 9207.264 Crores”.

31.With regard to no interest on guarantee fee and

management fee during the construction period of 36 months

and no interest on Commitment fee, the stand of the 1

st

respondent has been put forth in various compartments. We

think it apt to reproduce the relevant grounds:-

“2.9.1 The Consultant ought not to have loaded

interest on Guarantee Fee and Management Fee

during the construction period of 36 months, for the

evaluation of CSEPDI’s Price Bid.

2.9.2 The very same Repayment Schedule calculation

set out above shows that no interest is being charged

on Guarantee Fee and Management Fee during the

construction period of 36 months and does not form

part of the amount which TANGEDCO has to repay.

Not a single rupee needs to be paid over and above

the amounts mentioned in the Repayment Schedule.

2.9.3 The only interest payable during the

construction period of 36 months is interest

calculated at 7.2% p.a. on the basic loan amount

(85% of the EPC cost) and not on any other amount

like Guarantee Fee and Management Fee. This is

made clear in the specific calculation sheet for

Page 33 33

Interest During Construction submitted by CSEPDI in

its Price Bid.

2.9.4 The Term Sheet submitted by CSEPDI outlines

the fees required to be paid by TANGEDCO and the

circumstances in which they are payable. In the very

nature of this contract, the items chargeable have to

be mentioned, not the items not chargeable. The

contract requires to be evaluated based on what the

bidder is charging TANGEDCO.

2.9.5 In CSEPDI’s Term Sheet, mention is made of

Management Fee and SINOSURE Re-insurance

(Guarantee Fee). No mention is made of interest on

Management Fee and Guarantee Fee for the

construction period of 36 months.

2.9.6 As far as interest on Commitment Fee is

concerned, the same does not arise as Commitment

Fee itself cannot be loaded for evaluating CSEPDI’s

bid.”

32.The 1

st

respondent has also put forth that the Consultant

was not right in loading on CSEPDI bid the values for

Commitment Fee and interest thereon and Interest on

Guarantee Fee and Management Fee during the construction

period of 36 months, because that Clause 14.d.6 only states

that details of the Financing Charges should be clearly

outlined in the Financing Term Sheet and does not state that

it should be included in the price evaluation; that the

Page 34 34

reference to Commitment Fee in the Term Sheet clearly

indicates that it is only on the cancelled portion of the loan;

that the fee is to be paid only if the loan amount is not drawn

by the 18

th

, 30

th

and 42

nd

months in accordance with the

Drawdown Schedule; that Clause 12.1 and Clause 32.1.1

makes no mention of interest on Financing Charges (i.e., on

Management Fee and Guarantee Fee) during the IDC period;

that the words ‘Interest and Financing Charges’ cannot mean

interest on financing charges; that there is absolutely no

variance between the Term Sheet and Repayment Schedule

submitted by CSEPDI; that the Term Sheet and the entire

Financial Proposal/Price Bid, including the Repayment

Schedule, are to be read together; that the CSEPDI’s Term

Sheet only mentions that a Management Fee is to be paid but

does not mention any interest on Management Fee for the 36

month construction period (IDC period) and that the

Consultant ought not to have loaded the disputed amounts for

evaluating the price bid of CSEPDI. It is also the stand that on

a perusal of the Comparison Sheet filed would indicate that

Page 35 35

CSEPDI is L1 by Rs.171.600 crores if the evaluation is done

correctly. That apart, the 1

st

respondent has raised other

grounds which we need not refer to in detail.

33.The Corporation in support of the Consultant’s Report

has stated that the stand of the 1

st

respondent that Net Loan

Amount in the repayment schedule provided by respondent

No.1 gives no break up of how the said figure has been

reached; that one cannot find out from a bare perusal of the

said Repayment Schedule as to whether the respondent No.1

has factored the component of Commitment Fee in the Net

Loan Amount; that the respondent having not been declared

as L1 bidder as a post facto contention, now say that

Commitment Fee shall not be taken for evaluation in spite of

the fact that they themselves have quoted Commitment Fees

for Rs.164.702 crores with split up details in the price bid and

the above post facto contention is against all tenets of fairness

and justice; that had the respondent No.1 become L1, they

would have insisted that Commitment Fee being a financial

charge forms part of the loan and therefore is payable by the

Page 36 36

borrower i.e., the Corporation as per their price bids submitted

by respondent No.1; that since the respondent No.1 had not

been evaluated as L1, a contention is advanced that

Commitment Fee should not be taken for evaluation citing

universal definition.

34.On interest on management and guarantee fee, the stand

of the Corporation is that the CSEPDI-TRISHE CONSROTIUM

have 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

above fees as per the term sheet of the Industrial and

Commercial Bank of China Limited from the date on which

they fall due since the above fees form part of the debt to be

repaid by the appellant; that it is clear from the Tender

Conditions as well as the Term Sheet provided by Industrial

and Commercial Bank of China Limited and the clarification

dated 21.10.2013 (issued by Industrial and Commercial Bank

of China Limited) that appellant herein would be bound to pay

Page 37 37

the interest on the whole loan amount which will include the

financial charges.

35. The Corporation has quoted the relevant tender conditions

from the Term Sheet submitted by Industrial and Commercial

Bank of China Limited which are reproduced below:-

“Clause 14(d)1 of the

Instruction to Bidders

under the Tender

defines the “Loan

Amount” to include at

least 75% of the total

EPC cost + 100% of

interest during

construction and

Financing Cost. As

per clause 14(d) 6 of

the Instruction to

Bidders under the

Tender management

fee and guarantee fee

is part of the financial

charges/financial cost.

Under the term relating to “Interest

rate” in term sheet submitted by

Industrial and Commercial Bank of

China it is clearly provided that the

Borrower will pay interest on the full

loan amount at a fixed rate per

annum.

Under the terms defined as

“management fee” in the term sheet

Page 38 38

submitted by Industrial and

Commercial Bank of China Limited it

is specified that Management fee of

1.5% flat on the Loan Amount will be

payable to the lender within a period

of 60 days from the date of financial

closure. Six months is the time given

for financial closure and so 8 months

in case of management fee in view of

outer limit of 60 days.

Similarly, under the terms relating to

“Conditions Precedent”, the condition

(d) the term sheet specifies that

petitioners will be charged guarantee

fee (termed as Insurance Policy in the

term sheet) at the rate of 5% on 95%

of the loan amount and the same will

be payable from the end of the 6

th

month.

According to the term sheet the

amounts get debited to the Petitioners

account at the end of the 8

th

month

and 6

th

month respectively.

All financial costs form part of the

debt taken from the Industrial and

Commercial Bank of China Limited.

As per the clarification dated

21.10.2013 issued by Industrial and

Commercial Bank of China Limited

which is the Lender institution for

Respondent no.1 all costs and fee

charged by ICBC will form part of the

debt financing”.

Page 39 39

36.From the aforesaid, it is vivid that the Consultant has

analysed the offers regard being had to the tender conditions.

Be it ingeminated that the analysis and determination made

by the financial consultant has been carried out before receipt

of any additional document from either side. The documents

were called for by the owner from both the qualifying bidders

in a transparent manner and the same have been considered

at the time of evaluation by the Consultant. Submission of

Mr. Sibal is that the evaluation is ex facie defective inasmuch

as the Consultant has loaded certain charges as a

consequence of which the price has gone up. Mr. Rohatgi,

learned Attorney General appearing for BHEL and Mr. Prasad,

learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation would

submit that the evaluation is founded on definities leaving

nothing to any kind of contingency. They have referred to the

Term Sheet and what is put up by Industrial and Commercial

Bank of China Limited. At this juncture we are obliged to say

that in a complex fiscal evaluation the Court has to apply the

doctrine of restraint. Several aspects, clauses, contingencies,

Page 40 40

etc. have to be factored. These calculations are best left to

experts and those who have knowledge and skills in the field.

The financial computation involved, the capacity and 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. The courts cannot really enter into

the said realm in exercise of power of judicial review. We

cannot sit in appeal over the financial consultant’s

assessment. Suffice it to say, it is neither ex facie erroneous

nor can we perceive as flawed for being perverse or absurd.

37. Before parting with the case we are constrained to add

something. We do so with immense pain. The respondent,

before finalization of the financial bid submitted series of

representations and seeing the silence of the owner it knocked

at the doors of the writ court which directed for consideration

of the representations. We are disposed to think that the High

Court at that stage should have exercised caution. If the

courts would exercise power of judicial review in such a

manner it is most likely to cause confusion and also bring

Page 41 41

jeopardy in public interest. An aggrieved party can approach

the Court at the appropriate stage, not when the bids are

being considered. We do not intend to specify. It is appreciable

the owner in certain kind of tenders call the bidders for

negotiations to show fairness transparently. But the present

case is not a one of such nature. Once the price bid was

opened, a bidder could not have submitted representations on

his own and seek a mandamus from the Court to take certain

aspects into consideration. We have stressed this aspect only

to highlight the role of the Court keeping in mind the

established principle of restraint.

38.In view of our preceding analysis we are of the considered

opinion that the Division Bench through the delineation has

adopted the approach of an appellate forum or authority and

extended the principle of judicial review to certain areas to

which it could not have and, therefore, the judgment and

order of the Division Bench followed the path of error in

continuum. Consequently, the inevitable conclusion is

unsettlement of the impugned order and we so direct. In the

Page 42 42

ultimate eventual the appeals stand allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

..............................J.

(Dipak Misra)

..............................J.

(Shiva Kirti Singh)

New Delhi;

October 18, 2016.