Delhi High Court - Orders
Rays Power Infra Limited vs Ntpc Green Energy Limited & Anr on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~132
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14417/2025 and CM APPL.59124/2025
RAYS POWER INFRA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv.
alongwith Mr. Sushil and Mr. Ashish
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
NTPC GREEN ENERGY LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Sr. Adv.
alongwith Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr.
Manmohan Singh Narula and Mr.
Amit yadav, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 23.09.2025
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner raising a limited grievance that the respondent no.1 has arbitrarily treated a clerical error in the financial bid submitted by the petitioner as "modification" thereby threatening the forfeiture of the bid security furnished by the petitioner.
2. During the course of argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner confines himself to pressing prayer (c) of the present petition. The same reads as under:
"c) Issue a writ directing the Respondents to reject the bid of Petitioner as non-performable and return our bid security to avoid manifest injustice."
3. It is submitted that the petitioner participated in a tender issued by respondent No. 1 for the 'Balance of System Package for Development of 1500 MW Grid Connected Solar PV Projects at RVUNL's Solar Park, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2025 at 22:18:17 Bikaner.'
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13.06.2025, the petitioner submitted bids for three blocks (Blocks 2, 3 & 6) quoting approx. INR 1. 7 crore per block. Due to an inadvertent clerical error, the per MW rate was submitted as the total project cost, making the bid figures absurdly low and unworkable.
5. It is submitted that on discovering the same, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation on 09.09.2025 requesting correction by treating the figure as per MW rate. However, the respondent rejected the same vide email dated 10.09.2025, terming it a modification.
6. It is pointed out during the course of hearing that subsequently, the respondent proceeded with the process of reverse auction without any participation of the petitioner.
7. In the circumstances, the petitioner confines himself to seeking return of its bid security.
8. Issue notice.
9. Learned counsel, as aforesaid, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
10. Let reply be filed within a period of 4 weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of 2 weeks, thereafter.
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Limited & Anr. Vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7330 to contend that besides the fact that the pre-conditions for invoking the bid security are not satisfied in the present case, even otherwise, the provision for forfeiture is punitive in nature and is not reflective of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2025 at 22:18:17 loss/damages suffered by the authorities towards any incremental cost and efforts, for conducting the tender evaluation after ignoring the petitioner's bid.
12. In the circumstances, till the next date of hearing, subject to the petitioner keeping the surety bonds alive and subsisting, the respondents shall be restrained from encashing the same.
13. List on 22.01.2026.
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2025/at This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2025 at 22:18:17