Gauhati High Court
Technip Energies India Ltd vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 6 January, 2023
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010003342023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/96/2023
TECHNIP ENERGIES INDIA LTD.
(FORMERLY TECHNIP INDIA LIMITED),
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
PRASHAT SHARMA,
S/O- BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT TECHNIP TOWER,
A-4, SECTOR-1,
NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH- 201301.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
THROUGH MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
A-WING, SHASTRI RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
110001, AZAD BHAWAN RD, IP ESTATE,
NEW DELHI, DELHI- 110002.
2:NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 122A
G.S. ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 781005 AND ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT GOLAGHAT
NUMALIGARH
ASSAM
785699.
3:M/S THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE
LIMITED
Page No.# 2/4
THROUGH ITS PROJECT PROCUREMENT MANAGER
SUSHANT DESHPANDE/ AMAR SONSALE
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 154 C
MITTAL TOWER
15TH FLOOR
210
NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI- 400021
INDIA.
4:G.R. ENGINEERING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH GR ENGINEERING PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
366 DDA FLAT
BADARPUR
NEW DELHI 110044
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 06.01.2023 Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Deuri, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India and Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. Aggrieved by the reasons for which the price bid of the petitioner in connection with tender floated by the Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. for the development of "Reactor and Regenerator (RXRG Package)" for the Numaligarh Page No.# 3/4 Refinery Expansion Project (NERP) issued by the respondent no.2 though the respondent no.3, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Without entering into merit of the writ petition and the submissions and counter submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, it would suffice to record herein that on a pointed query of the Court, upon instruction, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that he has received instruction to the effect that the price bid of the petitioner could be opened after receipt of the password from the petitioner. Accordingly, it appears that it is not in dispute that before the rejection of the price bid of the petitioner by impugned order i.e. e-mail dated 02.01.2023 at 10.03 AM, the respondent authorities had been able to open the price bid submitted by the petitioner.
4. Under such circumstances, as the rejection order has preceded with the opening of the price bid of the petitioner, the Court is of the considered opinion that it would meet the ends of justice to direct the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities for consideration of their price bid as their price bid could be opened prior to the issuance of e-mail in reference.
5. On such representation is being made, the respondent authorities shall take note of their instruction that the price bid could be opened prior to the rejection of the price bid of the petitioner, and the authorities shall take a decision in accordance with law.
6. If such application/ representation is made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities would consider the same independent of the rejection Page No.# 4/4 vide their e-mail dated 02.01.2023 at 10.03 AM.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of to the extent as indicated above at the motion stage without issuance of notice to the respondents.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant