Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

62. After taking note of Regulations 5, 5(6), 6, 7 and 9 of the 2008 Regulations, the Supreme Court observed that, under Regulation 7, the Board, while considering proposals for authorisation, shall tabulate and _____________________________________________________________________________________________ compare all financial bids which meet the minimum eligibility criteria in accordance with the bidding criteria set out; the Table set out in Regulation 7(1)(a) provided for the tabulation of all eligible financial bids on the basis of five parameters and the weightage to be ascribed to each of them; the first criterion is the "lowness" of the transportation rate for CGD computed in rupees per million for a British Thermal Unit, and the weightage ascribed to this criterion is 10%; the second criterion is the "lowness" of the transportation rate for CNG expressed in rupees per kilogram, and the weightage ascribed to this criterion is 10%; the third criterion is the "highness" of the number of CNG stations to be installed within eight contract years from the date of authorization, and the weightage ascribed to this parameter is 20%; the fourth criterion is the "highness" of the number of domestic piped natural gas connections to be achieved within eight contract years from the date of authorization, and the weightage ascribed to this criterion is 50%; the fifth criterion is the "highness" of the inch-kilometre of steel pipeline to be laid within eight contract years from the date of authorization, and the weightage ascribed to this parameter is 10%.

67. The Supreme Court observed that the submission urged on behalf of the appellants, in regard to the relevance of the 2011 Census data, must first and foremost be assessed in the context of the CGD Authorisation _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Regulations as amended on 6-4-2018; the Regulations postulated that bidders must submit both technical and financial bids; the procedure specified in Regulation 5 applied to an invitation by the Board for laying, building, operating or expanding a CDG network; Regulation 5(6) required the fulfilment of minimum eligibility criteria; for a technical bid to pass muster, the minimum eligibility criteria required the bidder to be qualified both with reference to technical and financial parameters; this was evident from Regulation 5(6) under which the Board was to scrutinise the bids of only those entities which fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria; the minimum eligibility criteria included the technical capability of the bidding entity to (i) lay and build; and (ii) operate and maintain a CGD network; both of them were defined with reference to the qualifying criteria; besides the technical criteria, the minimum eligibility requirement under Regulation 5(6)(e) incorporated the financial ability to execute the project and to operate and maintain it in the authorised area; the financial criteria were defined with reference to the minimum net worth of the bidding entity; the net worth required was dependent on the population of the GA under the 2011 Census; the minimum net worth required was specifically defined with reference to the 2011 Census figures of population for the GA; the bidding entity was also required to submit a bid bond in the form of a performance bond guarantee; and the quantum of the guarantee was dependent on the population of the GA.

68. The Supreme Court further observed that Regulation 7 required the Board to tabulate all financial bids which met the minimum eligibility criteria, in accordance with the bidding criteria specified in the table; the table incorporated in the Regulation provided five-fold criteria for the tabulation and comparison of financial bids; significantly, the bidding criteria in Regulation 7 are not linked to the 2011 Census figures; there were two significant facets of Regulation 7: (i) the absence of a linkage of the projected _____________________________________________________________________________________________ number of domestic PNG connections with the 2011 Census data; and (ii) the absence of a cap or ceiling on the "highness" norm both in relation to the third and the fourth criteria; the provisions contained in the 2008 CGD Authorisation Regulations, as amended on 6-4-2018, indicated that where a specific linkage was sought with reference to the 2011 Census data, a clear and categorical provision was made to that effect; such provisions were found in regard to the financial capability of a bidder as part of the minimum eligibility criteria in Regulation 5(6)(e), and the extent of the performance bond in Regulation 5(6)(h); absent a condition in Regulation 7, linking the "highness" of the number of PNG connections to be achieved within eight years from the date of authorisation with the 2011 Census data, it would be contrary to basic principles of interpretation to read such a restriction into the CGD Authorisation Regulations; a conditionality which had not been incorporated in Regulation 7 could not be introduced as a matter of construction; and the Court must first and foremost read the Regulation in accordance with its plain and natural meaning.

74. The 2008 Authorisation Regulations, notified initially on 19.03.2018 and as amended on 06.04.2018, are the Regulations applicable to the present case. Regulation 7 thereof relates to the bidding criteria and reads thus:-

"7. Bidding criteria.
(1) The Board, while considering the proposal for authorization, shall tabulate and compare all financial bids meeting the minimum eligibility criteria, as per the bidding criteria given below, namely:-