Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Abhishek Enterprises Through Its ... vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 27 August, 2020
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 11459 / 2020
(M/s Abhishek Enterprises Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd
and another)
Jabalpur, Dated: 27.08.2020
Hearing convened through Video Conferencing:
Mr. Prakash Upadhyaya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Greeshm Jain, Advocate for the respondents on advance notice.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming for following reliefs:
"i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to make an enquiry on the claim of the petitioner after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
ii) Any other relief deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice."
The respondents had issued a Tender for completing balance work of dry ash extraction system VSTPP, STG-IV (2x500 MW) Fabrication and erection of SILOS and allied structural work at the risk and cost of M/s Teepro System Limited, in which the petitioner alongwith other two other firms have participated. One of the conditions in the said Tender was that a preference would be given to make in India and a purchase preference to local supplied will be granted and the detailed procedure is enumerated in Clause 4.1 of Annexure-II, of Section III of bid document. Clause 23 of Section III of the bid documents specifically provides that a declaration of local content is required to be submitted and in case it is submitted, the bidder would not be entitled to be considered as 'local supplier'.
In the said bid, the petitioner/firm was found L-1 bidder. However, the work order has not been issued due to the technical error relating to Clause 23 (declaration of local content).
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has submitted a representation through e-mail indicating compliance of Clause 23 and had sent a reminder e-mail also, which are appended as Annexure P/4 and P/5 respectively. It was also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents be directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law.
In view of the above fact situation, without commenting on the merits of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative through video conferencing, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Disposed of.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
Chief Justice Judge
Aks/-
Digitally signed
by ANIL KUMAR
S
Date: 2020.08.27
15:47:14 +05'30'