Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging, inter alia, the decision of the Border Roads Organisation, respondent no.2 herein (hereinafter referred as the „BRO‟) in awarding the Letter of Award dated 12.03.2013 (hereinafter referred as the „impugned LOA‟) in favour of respondent no.3 for the project referred to as Z-Morh tunnel on National Highway No. 1 (Srinagar Sonmarg Gumri Road) in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer Annuity Basis. The petitioners have also impugned the action of the BRO in executing the Concession Agreement with respondent no.5, a company incorporated for the purpose of executing the project (hereinafter referred to as the „SPV‟).

2. The BRO, is engaged in the development and maintenance of roads and bridges in the border areas of India. The BRO issued a "Request for Qualification" (hereinafter referred to as the „RFQ‟) on 16.04.2012, inviting pre-qualification proposals from interested bidders/parties for the development, operation and maintenance of the Z-Morh tunnel on National Highway No. 1 (Srinagar Sonmarg Gumri Road) in the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as the „project‟) on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer Annuity basis through Public-Private Partnership.

7. The Petitioner sent a letter dated 04.02.2013 to the BRO for confirming the extension of validity of its bid until March 31, 2013. Respondent no.4 also issued a letter dated 27.02.2013 to the BRO expressing its willingness to extend the validity of its bid, however, no response was received from the BRO. The validity of the bids submitted by all bidders, except respondent no.3 and the Petitioner, expired on 13.02.2013 on the completion of 120 days from the Bid Due Date in terms of Clause 1.2.3 of the RFQ.

8. By way of the impugned LOA dated 12.03.2013 issued to respondent no.3 by the BRO, respondent no.3 was declared as the "Selected Bidder". Respondent no.3 being a single entity applicant was required to incorporate a Special Purpose Vehicle in terms of the RFP and RFQ for the purpose of domiciling the Project in an independent entity carrying on no other business or activity other than those related to the project. It was stated in the impugned LOA that the Special Purpose Vehicle would be the concessionaire for the Project and a Concession Agreement would be entered into between the BRO and such Special Purpose Vehicle. Respondent no. 5 was incorporated as the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for the purposes of executing the project and exercising the attendant rights in relation to the project. The concession agreement between the BRO and the Special Purpose Vehicle was executed on 30.04.2013.