Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The material on record provides reasons for nominating Surbana without inviting fresh tenders. No material has been presented to indicate that the Petitioner gained any financial benefit from Surbana's appointment or STUP consultants.

22. According to the submissions of the learned Advocate General, APCRDA issued a tender notification for appointing a consultant through competitive bidding to prepare a pre-feasibility, feasibility, and detailed project report (D.P.R.) for IRR. M/s. STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, was selected for the work. Notably, a specific condition was imposed on the successful consultant in the R.F.P., stating that "as far as possible, the IRR alignment should follow the proposed alignment as per the Draft Master Plan of the Capital city".

23. The learned Advocate General further contends that M/s. STUP Consultants recommended the alignment of Option 1 from three options, and APCRDA officials, on 14.12.2016, gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation to the Petitioner, explaining the merits and demerits of the three IRR alignment options. The PowerPoint presentation's comparison matrix specified that Option 2 of IRR alignment was unsuitable, not fulfilling the I.R.'s objective, and having a significantly higher total cost than Options 1 and 3.