Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii. Writ, Order or any other direction or order declaring the bid submitted by the successful bidder (L1) as non-complaint and invalid bid.
iii. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order declaring the action dated 19.08.2025, wherein the petitioners bid was decided as non- responsive, as illegal, and without any basis (Annexure-D) iv. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order to qualify our Bid and direct the KPTCL rehold the reverse auction process in an open and transparent manner with sufficient notice.
v. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts of the case.
vi. Grant the costs of these proceedings.

2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited [KPTCL]- Respondent No.1 invited proposal to set up a grid-connected standalone Battery Energy Storage System, for which a Battery Energy Storage System Agreement would be entered into by the NC: 2026:KHC:4395 HC-KAR State, the bidders being selected through a reverse auction to provide such energy storage facilities to HESCOMs. The Petitioner participated in respect of the tender notification. It being a single-stage bidding process with two envelopes containing technical and financial bids. The tender was issued on 11.06.2025, a pre-bid meeting was held on 18.06.2025, the last date for bid submission was 3.07.2025, and the process was to be completed by 8.07.2025. The Petitioner claims to have submitted the requisite bid documents vide letter dated 8.07.2025 and informed respondent No.1 that an online application had been successfully submitted through the ETS portal, which was acknowledged on 9.07.2025. Petitioner claims that no deficiencies were pointed out in respect of the documents submitted, and, as such, was shocked to learn on 19.08.2025, upon logging on to the portal, that the NC: 2026:KHC:4395 HC-KAR Petitioner's bid at tender stage-1 was declared non- responsive.

6.8. Insofar as reverse auction and the allegation that a high price has been quoted, he has filed

- 37 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4395 HC-KAR a memo indicating the tenders by way of reverse auction, which have occurred from January 2025 to June 2025 in various southern states, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

9.14. The Petitioner does not challenge the validity or clarity of the eligibility conditions themselves, but disputes the manner of their application. Such a dispute, by its very nature, does not attract the limited exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal's case.

- 47 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4395 HC-KAR 9.15. The Petitioner has contended that the tariff discovered in the reverse auction is excessive and detrimental to public interest. 9.16. The material on record indicates that the reverse auction was conducted strictly in accordance with the tender framework and that the price discovered was a product of competitive bidding.