Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

vi. Whether the State Commission erred in holding that TSPL was under no compulsion to sign the PPA upon successfully bidding for the Project, when it was not possible for TSPL to alter its Financial Bid at such stage on the basis of new information?

Appeal No. 36 of 2016 & IA No 91 of 2016 vii. Whether the State Commission erred in holding that TSPL would only be entitled to receive payments for the cost of coal only on the basis of the charges levied by the Coal Company i.e. MCL, and nothing further?

d) Further, as per clause 2.7.1.4 of the RFP, TSPL was merely required to quote Capacity Charges during the financial bid. It was abundantly clear that no Energy Charges for primary fuel (coal) were to be quoted by the bidders and that the design of the bidding process (Case 2, Scenario 4) did not envisage the factoring of any kind of Energy Charges in the financial bid by the bidders.

e) Under Clause 1.4(B)(2) of the RFP, PSEB had ensured that the fuel requirement of the Project would be arranged by PSEB itself, with coal supply of 8.7 MT / year having GCV of 3900 kCal/kg. It was also specified that the long term coal linkage had been sought for the Project and that the Ministry of Coal, Government of India had approved the issuance of Letter of Assurance ("LoA") to meet the fuel requirement of the Project.

viii. Hence the issues raised under Question No. 6. ii. are decided against the Appellant.

c) On issues raised in Question 6. iii. i.e. Whether the Impugned Order was passed in ignorance of the fact that bidding for the Project was based solely on two parameters i.e. Net Heat Rate and Capacity Charges, and bidders did not assume any risk and responsibility in respect of the Fuel for the Project, and that the inclusion of any variable charges in a financial bid could have led either to the sustained unjust enrichment of TSPL or in TSPL suffering sustained losses over the term of the PPA, depending on the actual costs incurred? , we would like to reiterate that the Bidding parameters and the methodology and calculation of energy charge including its component, which are allowed were upfront made available to all the Bidders. It was up to the Bidders to prepare their financial bids based on their wisdom according to the terms of RFP documents. Hence any risk related to any of the components ought to be suitably factored in by the Bidders in their bids.

viii. Hence issues raised in both the Questions i.e. Question No 6. v.

and Question No 6. vii. are decided against the Appellant.

Appeal No. 36 of 2016 & IA No 91 of 2016

f) Now on the next question of law raised in the present Appeal i.e. Question No 6. vi. - Whether the State Commission erred in holding that TSPL was under no compulsion to sign the PPA upon successfully bidding for the Project, when it was not possible for TSPL to alter its Financial Bid at such stage on the basis of new information?, we observe as below:-