Karnataka HC bins L&T plea against Sharavathy hydel project tender

The High Court has dismissed the writ appeal, filed by Larsen and Toubro (L&T), challenging the short-term tender for Sharavathy Pumped Storage Hydro Electric project.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit, observed that the L&T had only acted as a fence-sitter without actively participating in the tender.

The company had challenged the March 6, 2024 order of the single bench dismissing its petition regarding the tender process. It questioned the February 23, 2024 deadline for submission of the tender.

It stated that the deadline for bid submission was only 21 days, not even minimum 30 days prescribed under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act. The company had sought the same to be extended to May 2, 2024, which would have been 90 days from the date of issuance of tender notification.

On the other hand, the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd (KPCL) argued that the L&T did not participate in the tender process at all and hence, has no eligibility to participate in the tender process, as it has equipped with civil works and does not have experience in electro-mechanical and hydro-mechanical works.

Similarly, Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd, which was the successful bidder in the tender for the project estimated at Rs 8,005 crore, stated that L&T gathered information by visiting the website and went on to correspond with the KPCL showing interest in the bid submission.

According to it, the L&T went on giving its own suggestions about the conditions, including the time period for submission of the bid, showing that it had been negotiating with the expert partners for the technical part of the project.

However, at the end, the L&T did not submit the bid and kept away from participating in the tender.

The bench noted that in the entire process leading to filing of the writ petition and raising challenge against the condition of timeline to submit the bid, it became suggestive that the petitioner-appellant acted as a fence-sitter.

“A party, who does not participate in the process, would lose the right to challenge the process.  Such a person stands as a stranger in the matter of deriving locus to lay a challenge. Therefore, it could be argued by the respondents that the appellant having not participated cannot challenge the tender process or the tender condition,” the bench said.