Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (tangedco), Rep. By Its Chairman and Managing Vs Csepdi - Trishe Consortium, Rep. By Its Managing Director

Page 1

1

Reportable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10182-10183 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 28959-28960 of 2015)

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution …Appellant(s) Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) Rep. By Its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. Etc.

Versus

CSEPDI – Trishe Consortium, Rep. By its …Respondent(s) Managing Director & Anr.

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10184-10185 OF 2016 (@ SLP Nos. 30098-30099 of 2015)

J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Ltd (for short ‘the Corporation’) vide notification

dated 06.05.2013 floated a tender for setting up of two units of

Page 2

2

660 MW Ennore SEZ Supercricitcal Thermal Power Project at

Ash Dyke of NCTPS, Chennai wherein four bidders including

the respondents herein participated. However, two bidders out

of four were disqualified as they failed to meet the Bid

Qualification Requirements (BQR) as a result of which bids of

Consortium of Trishe Energy Infrastructure Services Private

Limited (CSEPDI) and Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd (BHEL) were

taken up for consideration. Prior to the opening of the price

bid, CSEPDI and BHEL submitted supplementary price bids

on 05.02.2014. Price bids were opened on 05.02.2014 by the

appellant in the presence of the representatives of the

respondents, the qualified bidders.

3. The uncurtaining of facts would depict that the

1strespondent sent series of representations dated 16.06.2014,

17.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 08.07.2014 to the appellant

highlighting various aspects of the bid and the relevance of

para (viii) of Clause 29.0 of the “Instructions to Bidders” (ITB)

which also deals with the rejection of bids of the tenderer

whose past performance/vendor rating is not satisfactory.

Page 3

3

Since the appellant paid no heed to the request made by the

respondent No.1, it filed W.P. No. 19247 of 2014 seeking issue

of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellant to consider the

representations and comply with Tamil Nadu Transparency In

Tenders Act, 1998 (for short, “the TTIT Act”). An undertaking

was given before the learned Single Judge by the learned

Advocate General that post-bid representations submitted by

the respondent No.1 will be duly considered while finalizing

the tenders and appropriate orders will be passed in

accordance with the tender specifications and the TTIT Act

and rules framed thereunder and in terms of the said

undertaking, learned Single Judge vide order dated

31.07.2014 directed the appellant to consider and pass orders

on the representations of the appellant herein after affording

them an opportunity of personal hearing and directed that till

such orders are passed, the tender should not be finalised.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed writ

appeal W.A. No. 1065 of 2014 before the Division Bench

which, by judgment and order dated 19.08.2014, disposed of

Page 4

4

the writ appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single

Judge only to the extent that affording of opportunity of

personal hearing to the person was impermissible having not

contemplated under the Rules (for short, “the rules”) and

further permitted the respondent No.1 to submit additional

documents raising all its objections and the appellant was

directed to pass an order and communicate the same to the

respondents, CSEPDI and BHEL. However, the Division

Bench did not modify the direction of the learned Single Judge

which was to the effect that till a decision was taken on

representations of the 1st respondent, the bid shall not be

finalised.

5. After the disposal of the writ appeal, the respondent No.1

sent its representation on 25.08.2014 along with necessary

documents which was rejected by the appellant vide its

communication dated 27.09.2014. The legal propriety of the

said rejection was called in question by way of writ petition

W.P. No. 26762 of 2014 seeking quashment of the same and

further restraining the owner from taking steps to finalise the

Page 5

5

tender. During the hearing of the writ petition, a copy of letter

dated 27.09.2014 awarding the contract to BHEL, respondent

No. 2 herein, was brought on record. It was mentioned therein

with regard to price negotiation meetings with the respondent

No. 2. The respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 1.10.2014 to

the appellant, highlighting the arbitrariness, anomalies and

inconsistencies in its reasoning and the mala-fide intent in the

matter of evaluation of the bid submitted by it. However, the

appellant by letter dated 10.10.2014, informed the 1st

respondent that the subject tender had been finalised and

awarded to BHEL.

6. The letter dated 27.9.2014 awarding the contract to

respondent No. 2 and letter dated 10.10.2014 were assailed by

the respondent No.1 by filing W.P. No. 27529 of 2014 for

annulments of the letters and further for issue of directions to

the Corporation to determine the award of the tender strictly

in terms of the Tender/Bid document and taking into account

the bid of respondent No.1 and that of BHEL, the respondent

No.2 herein.

Page 6

6

7. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition

primarily based on the perusal of notes in the files containing

the Consultant Report dated 30.05.2014 and on that basis

opined that the conduct of process of evaluation of the tenders

did not appear to be arbitrary, capricious or unfair; and that

price bids of the bidders had been evaluated as per the

parameters indicated in the tender notification by an

independent consultant who was selected as per the Board

Resolution that was within the knowledge of both the bidders.

The reasoning of the learned Single Judge basically hinged on

the Consultant’s Report that had determined that the

respondent No.2 herein was L1 and, therefore, the decision of

the Corporation in treating BHEL as L1 and awarding the

contract was neither arbitrary nor malafide.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the

respondent No.1 preferred writ appeals before the Division

Bench. The Division Bench took note of the various pleas

raised by the respondent No.1 including violation of the

statutory provisions, arbitrariness, adoption of unfair and

Page 7

7

non-transparent procedure, erroneous delineation of the

consultant’s report by the learned Single Judge and

non-consideration of public interest.

9. The Corporation, in its turn, contended before the

Division Bench that there was no violation of procedure and

the award of the contract was not amenable to judicial review

in the obtaining factual matrix and any interference would

only delay the execution of the work. It was also urged that

Tender Accepting Authority (TAA) had accepted the lowest

tender and negotiations were held only with lowest bidder;

that Clause 25.4 of the Instruction to Bidders did not permit

the bidder to change the substance of the bids after the bids

were opened; that though the respondent No.1 had offered

lower rate on interest, the original interest rate offered was not

in accordance with tender terms, for as per clause 14.0(d)(5)

the rate of interest quoted should be fixed, whereas the

CSEPDI had not specified the fixed rate of interest; that there

was no perversity or arbitrariness in the decision taken as per

the terms of the tender, prevalent banking practice and the

Page 8

8

Term Sheet given by the lender; that the Consultant was

appointed pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 28.01.2012

who participated in all pre-bid and post-bid meetings and the

minutes had been signed by all the parties and the consultant

and, therefore, CSEPDI was very much aware of appointment

of the consultant and the role played by consultant could

neither be criticised nor ignored.

10. The 2nd Respondent herein contended that respondent

No.1 lacked credibility to make any allegation against it; that

design was the core area of leader of the consortium and they

have no experience in India insofar as supercritical Thermal

Power Projects are concerned; and that the work was under

progress and they had expended substantial amount.

11. After hearing the rival contentions, the Division Bench

placed reliance on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa1 and

observed that the approach of the owner was unfair in the

tendering process. It further analysed the scheme of Section

1

(2007) 14 SCC 517

Page 9

9

10 of the TTIT Act and held that the Tender Accepting

Authority (TAA) has a role to cause objective evaluation of the

tenders. Referring to Section 10(6) of the TTIT Act, it held that

the Corporation had not complied with the said provision and

it was a case of procedural impropriety, unfair approach and

arbitrariness. The appellate Bench referred to the authority in

Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development

Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.2 and declined to accept

the stand of the Corporation by opining that reasons for

rejection of 1st respondent’s representations could not be

treated as reasons for rejection of its bid and hence, the

decision making process was flawed and in breach of Section

10(7) of the Act. It further held that in the “Tender Bulletin”,

absence of reasons for acceptance of tender, no statement of

evaluation of tenders and no comparative statement of tenders

received and, decision thereon was in clear violation of the

requirements of Section 6(1) read with Section 10 of the TTIT

Act and Rule 30(3) of the TTIT Rules. On the interest

2

(1990) 3 SCC 280

Page 10

10

component and commitment fee, the Division Bench held that

the approach was wholly arbitrary and the intention was to

oust the respondent No.1, for the evaluation process adopted

was meant to suit one and reject the other. It further held that

the process adopted and the decision taken by the owner was

arbitrary, unfair, irrational, biased and mala fide and did not

serve the larger public interest. In view of the said analysis,

the Division Bench allowed the appeals and directed the

Corporation to evaluate the price bid of the respondents in the

light of its findings and taking into consideration all relevant

parameters including the representations/documents

submitted by respondent No. 1 and to record detailed reasons

for the decision and communicate the same to the respondent

No.1 so as to comply with the requirement of the provisions of

the TTIT Act and TTIT Rules and various decisions of this

Court.

12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the

corporation and the successful bidder, by way of special leave,

have preferred separate appeals.

Page 11

11

13. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney

General and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for

the appellant-BHEL and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned

senior counsel for the appellant-Corporation, and Mr. Kapil

Sibal, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.

Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel for the respondent

No. 2.

14. It is apposite to note that in course of hearing it has been

opined that the singular issue that is required to be addressed

is “whether the Evaluation Report dated 30th May, 2014 by the

Consultant, is prima facie erroneous, requiring interference

within the parameters of judicial review”. Such a singular

point was required to be focused as Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,

learned Attorney General appearing for BHEL and Mr.

Subramonium Prasad learned senior counsel appearing for the

Corporation had submitted as the subsequent offers either by

BHEL or by the 1st respondent need not be considered. At that

juncture, Mr. Kapil Sibal learned senior counsel appearing for

the 1st respondent, the contesting party, had submitted that

Page 12

12

the Consultant’s Report would graphically exposit that the

respondent No.1 was entitled to be declared as L-1 even if it is

scrutinized within the limited parameters of the judicial

review. The Court had directed for handing over the

Consultant’s Report to the learned counsel appearing for the

1st respondent. In view of the aforesaid submission, the

opinion expressed on other issues by the learned Single Judge

or by the Division Bench need not be adverted to.

15. On a perusal of the facts brought on record, it is manifest

that the Corporation in its meeting held on 30.1.2014 had

decided to open the price bids on both the bidders and

thereafter the supplementary price bids were obtained from

both the parties for the additional implications items in

respect of technical deviation quoted by both parties and

thereafter the price bids were opened on 05.2.2014. As the

factual matrix would reveal, the price bids were evaluated by

the Consultant. The learned Single Judge has adverted to

price evaluation report submitted by the Consultant. Certain

Page 13

13

paragraphs from the report of the Consultant that were

reproduced by him are as follows:-

“4.0 Evaluation

4.1 BHEL

BHEL has arranged finance from M/s. Power Finance Corporation of India.

They are arranged to finance 75% of the total cost as debt at an interest rate of 12.25% p.a.

Attached Annexures 1 to 5 indicate the methodology adopted in calculating the various components required for evaluation like IDC-Debt, IDC-Equity, IDC-UF Fess, Debt Repayment Schedule etc.

4.2 CSEPDI – TRISHE

CSEPDI-TRISHE has arranged finance from M/s. ICBC, China.

They have arranged a finance 85% of the total cost as debt at an interest rate of 7.2% p.a.

Attached Annexures 6 to 12 indicate the methodology adopted in calculating the various components required for evaluation like IDC-Debt, IDC-Equity, IDC-UF Fess, Debt Repayment Schedule etc.

5.0 Evaluated Lower Cost

BHEL CSEPDI-TR ISHE

All figures in Rs. (Crores)

Capacity 1320 MW 1320 MW

Page 14

14

A Total EPC cost excluding VAT

7762.977 9207.264

B EPC Debt 75% 5822.233 7826.174 C EPC Equity 25% 1940.744 1381.090 D IDC Debt 12.25% 1295.079 1228.378 E EPC Debt

Including IDC (B + D)

7117.311 9054.552

F Upfront Fees Including Interest

8.925 801.180

G Total Debt (E + F)

7126.237 9855.732

H Interest on Equity

14% 509.597 456.606

I Total Equity (C + H)

2450.341 1837.695

J Total Project Cost (G + I)

9576.578 11693.427

K Total Cost per MW

7.255 8.859

L PV – Debt 7553.364 8464.318 M PV – Equity 2809.403 2106.984 N Total PV 10362.767 10271.302 O PV Cost per

MW ` 7.851 7.781

P Loading for Deficiency

10.287 173.229

Q Total (N+P) 10373.054 10444.531 R Evaluated Bid

Price per MW 7.858 7.913

Paragraphs 4.0 and 5.0 of the “Price Evaluation Report” submitted by the Consultant, which I have extracted above, show that the Consultant took into account only the interest rate of 12.25% per annum for the debt component arranged by BHEL from the Power Finance Corporation of India. The Consultant did not take note of the reduced rate namely 12.15,

Page 15

15

subsequently offered by BHEL, for arriving at the conclusion that the “Evaluated Bid Price” of BHEL was the lowest.”

16. There is no dispute that as per the Price Evaluation

Report by the Consultant, the EPC price of the respondent No.

1 was Rs.9207.264 crores and respondent No.2 to whom the

contract was awarded was Rs.7762.977 crores. Thus, the

difference between the two EPC price is Rs.1444.287 crores.

The 1st respondent disputed the Price Evaluation Report by the

Consultant on the ground that it wrongly loaded the sum

towards (a) the commitment fee, (b) interest on management

fee during IDC period; and (c) interest of guarantee fee during

IDC period in its bid amount which had led to the evaluation

of quoted financial charges with interest to Rs.801.18 crores.

17. As regards the commitment fee, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the contention of the respondent No.1

that since commitment fee was the fee to be charged on the

unutilised amount of the loan meaning thereby if the appellant

failed to draw the loan amount as undertaken, then only the

commitment fee would be charged and, therefore, the

Page 16

16

determination after addition of the same was without any

rationale as the respondent No.1 had quoted in the

‘Calculation Sheet for Financial Cost’ in the supplementary bid

commitment fee to the tune of Rs.164.72 crores which was to

be charged @ 1% p.a. on accrued drawals and if no

commitment fee was required to be paid, the respondent No.1

should have mentioned the same to be nil or zero. To show

that the commitment fee is a part of the financial charges,

learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to clause 14(d)

6 of the Instruction to Bidders under the tender, which reads

as follows:-

“6. Financing Charges : All financing charges of any nomenclature relating to financing of the project including but not limited to Finders Fees, Commitment Fees, Arrangement Fees, Management Fees, Up Front Fees, Syndication Fees, Service Charges, Guarantee Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if any should be clearly outlined in the Financing Term Sheet. No variation in Financing Charges is permitted during the tenor of loan.

3.37 “Financing Cost” means all financing charges of any nomenclature relating to financing of the project including but not limited to Finders Fees, Arranger’s Fees, Commitment Fees, Management Fees, Up Front

Page 17

17

Fees, Syndication Fees, Service Charges, Guarantee Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if any.”

18. At this juncture we may also refer to clause 3.37 of

Section 2 that deals with the General Terms and Conditions of

the Contract. It defines the “Financing Cost” as follows:-

“Financing Cost” means all financing charges of any nomenclature relating to financing of the project including but not limited to Finders Fees, Arranger’s Fees, Commitment Fees, Management Fees, Up Front Fees, Syndication Fees, Service Charges, Guarantee Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if any”.

19. Clause 14 that deals with the conditions for a Binding

Debt Financing Term Sheet, which needs to be reproduced in

entirety. It reads as follows:-

“14.0 Conditions for a Binding Debt Financing Term Sheet Bidder shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Lender for the Debt Financing agreeing to provide Financing for the Project and making payments directly to the Bidder based on bills certified by TANGEDCO as per the terms of payment clause. The MoU shall be submitted by the Bidder along with their offer for signing of the loan agreement. The Bidder shall be responsible for arranging the required financing and achieving Financial Closure of the project within 4 (Four months) from the date of Letter of Intent (LoI).

Page 18

18

a. The Bidder and Lender shall furnish a joint undertaking to fulfill the commitment made in the offer for Debt Financing arrangement from the Lender subject to due diligence. TANGEDCO will furnish the following documents to the lender for processing of Debt Financing to the successful bidder. 1. Profile of TANGEDCO 2. Audited Balance Sheet of TANGEDCO for the last three financial years 3. MOU entered between TANGEDCO & MMTC for long term supply of coal of this project. 4. Tariff order for sale of power. 5. Copy of DPR b. It shall be understood that the Financing Term Sheet shall be based on preliminary appraisal of the project jointly by the Bidder and the Lender satisfying themselves on the project financial viability. c. It shall be understood that the Award of Contract to the Bidder is contingent upon successful Financial Closure based on the Terms and Conditions provided in the Financing Term Sheet and in the event of the Financial Closure does not materialize due to reasons attributable to the Bidder or the Lender or in the event of withdrawal by the Lender from the Project, the Bidder will forfeit the security deposit.

d. The Term Sheet should be full and complete with all material terms of financing including but not limited to: 1. Loan Amount : At least 75% of the Total EPC Cost + 100% of Interest during construction and Financing Cost. 2. Currency of Loan: INR/USD/Euro or a combination thereof.

Page 19

19

3. Tenor of the Loan : From the date of first drawal of the Loan upto 6 months from COD of the 1st or 2nd unit whichever is later and 15 years thereafter. 4. Rate of Interest. 5. Fixed Rate of Interest till the entire tenor of the loan after taking into account the hedged cost. 6. Financing Charges : All financing charges of any nomenclature relating to financing of the project including but not limited to Finders Fees, Commitment Fees, Arrangement Fees, Management Fees, Up Front Fees, Syndication Fees, Service Charges, Guarantee Charges, Other Fees and Taxes, if any should be clearly outlined in the Financing Term Sheet. No variation in Financing Charges is permitted during the tenor of loan. 7. Terms and conditions for draw down schedule. 8. Moratorium for Repayment of Installment, Interest and Financing Charges: All cash outflow obligation of TANGEDCO towards repayment of Installment, Interest and Financing Charges should be in INR (fully hedged) for the entire tenure of the loan and the repayment will commence only after 6months from the date of COD of later unit. 9. Repayment Period: 15 years post IDC and moratorium in 60 equated quarterly installments 10. Project Cash Flows and Installment Repayments statement should be submitted and will form part of the Financing proposal. The Bidder shall indicate Draw Down Schedule of finance to match the supply and erection schedule of project activities. 11. Equity requirements and related covenants. 12. Security: Against Security the following can be made available by TANGEDCO a. Hypothecation of all 100% Project Assets b. Government Guarantee for the repayment of loan

Page 20

20

13. Validity period of the Term Sheet will be co-terminus with the validity of the bid.”

20. The stand of the respondent as regards the interpretation

of Clause 14(d) 6 is that it only outlines all fees, but it does not

mean that every such fee is to be loaded for evaluating the bid

to determine L1 and no commitment fee can be loaded for

such evaluation. It is also put forth that there can be no

question of loading interest on commitment fee.

21. As has been stated earlier, the issue pertaining to

correctness of Consultant’s report has to be adjudged and

scrutinized within the scope of limited power of judicial review

in the obtaining factual score. The Division Bench in the

impugned judgment has taken exception to the process

adopted in the identification of L1. It has referred to its order

dated 19.8.2014 wherein the 1st respondent was granted the

time to submit additional documents. The impugned order

takes note of the fact that at that point of time, the

Corporation had never averred that tender had been finalized.

It has referred to the earlier order of the Division Bench that

representations were to be considered and till then the bid

Page 21

21

should not be finalized. It has referred to the letter of the

Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation dated

20.7.2014 and opined that it appears to be a misstatement of

fact.

22. Be it stated that the Division Bench has posed two

questions:-

“(i) Whether interest offered by appellant is vague; and (ii) Whether the reduction of interest from 7.2% to 6.2% should be accepted.”

23. While dealing with the said issue, the Division Bench has

referred to the publication in the tender bulletin stating about

the decision on tender:-

“1. Name of the Tender: Chief Engineer/Civil/Projects & Environment, Inviting Officer, 3rd Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. a) Name of the Project/Detail of Purchase & Works: Establishment of coal based 2 x 660 MW Ennore SEZ Supercritical Thermal Power Project in the ash dyke of existing NCTPS under Single EPC cum Debt Finance basis. Vayalurvillage, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu.

Page 22

22

Sl. No

Details Tender Value

Decision on Tender

1

2

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, BHEL House, Sirifort, New Delhi – 110 049

Consortium of Central Southern China Electric Power Design – Ms. Trishe, 668, Minz Road, Ughan, China – 430 071

7840.08 7 Crores & Lender: Power Finance Corporat ion Limited Rate of Interest: 12.25%

9716.59 74 Crores & Lender: Industri al & Commer ce Bank of China Rate of Interest: 7.2% (USD @ Rs. 59.26 at SBI Bill selling rate)

Out of four bids received for this work and among the qualified two bidders, negotiation was called for & held with the lowest bidder viz M/s.BHEL. After negotiation, tender value of Rs. 7788 Crores, Rate of Interest at 12.15% was accepted by the Chief Engineer/Projects and order for acceptance of the tender issued vide this office issue Lr.No.CE/P/SE/ M/EE-10/E/File. 2x660MW Ennore SEZ STPP/D.No.60/dt .27.09.2014

Page 23

23

Finally, M/s. BHEL/New Delhi offered bid for Rs. 7788 Crores was accepted by the Chief Engineer/Projects/Chennai and order for acceptance of the tender was issued vide this officer Lr.No.CE/P/SE/M/EE-10/ E/File.2x660MW Ennore SEZ STPP/D.No.60/dt. 27.09.2014.”

24. Thereafter, the Division Bench has recorded as follows:-

“31.3 While it is the plea of the appellant that fixed rate of 7.2-7.5% per annum or LIBOR floating rate has been quoted by them, it is the case of the learned Advocate General that Clause 12.1 of the Instructions to Bidders stated that interest is to be quoted at fixed rate and it is not subject to change, and since the interest quoted is variable, it is not possible to evaluate the bid.

31.4 It is seen from the records, that subsequently, based on a query from the first respondent, the appellant had confirmed that it would be fixed rate of interest at 7.2%. the same was also confirmed in the Repayment Schedule and the same rate of interest was taken into consideration by the Consultant in his report dated 30.5.2014. He did not find fault with the rate of interest. It is to be noted that the Term Sheet was submitted during July, 2013 and tender was evaluated in the year 2014. The contention of vagueness in rate of interest does not appeal to us. When the Consultant’s report dated 30.5.2014 is accepted by TANGEDCO for the purpose of evaluation, it has to be accepted for all purposes, though we have reservation on the Consultant’s report dated 30.5.2014. There is, therefore, no vagueness in the rate of interest quoted at 7.2%.

31.5 The second issue relates to the reduction of rate of interest. It is not in dispute that various meetings were held between the appellant and the TANGEDCO.

Page 24

24

The learned Advocate General states that the Consultant was appointed based on the 21st Board Meeting on 28.1.2012 and the Consultant participated in all pre-bid and post-bid meetings and minutes were signed by all parties, including BHEL and the appellant. He stated that the appellant was aware of the Consultant’s appointment and his role. This only fortifies the fact that there have been series of consultation between both the bidders. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant acted on inside information is demolished by the stand of the learned Advocate General as above. The insinuation has no basis.

31.6 Coming to the issue of reduction of rate of interest, taking into consideration the prevailing market rate, the appellant offered to reduce the rate of interest from 7.2% to 6.2% on 5.6.2014, even prior to any form of litigation. When such an offer was given by the appellant the tender was not accepted in terms of Section 10(6) of the Act. To recapitulate, what has happened earlier is that the writ petition in W.P. No. 19247 of 2014 was filed on 17.7.2014, subsequent to the offer made on 5.6.2014. The first interim order was passed on 18.7.2014. The second interim order was passed on 31.7.2014. The Division Bench passed an order on 19.8.2014. At that point of time, there was never a statement by the TANGEDCO that L1 was identified and discussion was going on. We have also clearly stated that the statement of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of TANGEDCO that the representations of the appellant will be duly considered by the Board of Directors while finalizing the tender and appropriate orders will be passed strictly in accordance with the tender specifications and by following the provisions of TTIT Act and TTIT Rules.

Page 25

25

31.7 Therefore, the issue relating to reduction of rate of interest should have been considered. This reasoning of ours is also based on the fact that we have clearly held that the third respondent could not be ascertained as L1 on 2.6.2014 as per the statement of TANGEDCO or on 30.5.2014 as per the finding of the learned Single Judge. Once there is no identification of L1, TANGEDCO is bound to consider the reduction in rate of interest of both the appellant in their offer dated 5.6.2014 and that of the third respondent dated 27.6.2014, reducing the rate of interest from 12.25% to 12.15%.

31.8 Even otherwise, by virtue of the power under Clause 25.3 of the Instructions to bidders, which states that “The Purchaser reserves the right to relax or waive any of the conditions of this Specification in the best interests of the TANGEDCO”, the TANGEDCO could have considered such reduced rate of interest offered by the appellant and the third respondent.”

25. With regard to commitment fee, the analysis of the

Division Bench is worth referring to:-

“It clearly states that Commitment Fee is only on the cancelled portion of the loan. That apart, even as per the Drawdown Schedule, the fee is to be paid only if the loan amount is not drawn by the 18th, 30th and 42nd month. Moreover, the appellant in the letters dated 13.6.2014,16.6.2014 and 17.6.2014, clarified that Commitment Fee is only on the unused credit line and that there shall be no Commitment Fee if the loan amount is fully utilized as per the Drawdown Schedule. All these representations sent by the appellant were not considered by TANGEDCO, despite there being a specific direction by the Division Bench of this Court to consider the same. It is a clear case

Page 26

26

of arbitrariness in approach and intended to oust the appellant. This act of the TANGEDCO is nothing but a case of malafide in evaluation process to suit one and reject the other.”

26. While dealing with the consultant’s report, the Division

Bench has proceeded to state thus:-

“33.3 Even as per the Consultant’s Report the difference between the bid of the appellant and the third respondent is around Rs.71 Crores. That being the case, if either the Commitment Fee of Rs.156.184 Crores or the interest on Management Fee and Guarantee Fee for the 36 month construction period is not loaded on the appellant, it will have a bearing on deciding which one of the two is the lowest bid. Assuming the Consultant’s report is of any value, such report without considering the relevant material is of no use. The approach to add these figures without taking note of the representations and additional particulars/documents is, therefore, arbitrary and tainted in bias. This is in violation of the Division Bench judgment as well as the orders of the learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation.”

27. And again:-

“The financial implication in respect of two tenderers has been specified by the Consultant. The issue is what factors mean and how it impacts the bid. We find that the Repayment Schedule submitted by the appellant with regard to interest on management fee and guarantee fee during IDC period is an accepted document by the Consultant. If nothing more is to be paid beyond that and that is clarified in the course of representation in clear terms, we fail to understand as

Page 27

27

to how this amount could be included in the cost when there is no implication. The Consultant, as we have held, did not have the benefit of considering the representation and other documents on the financial implications in this issue. His opinion is therefore not based on relevant document/representation. This we have held is not in conformity with the order of the learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation, which was confirmed by the Division Bench. Withholding such a factor and to obtain an evaluation from the Consultant loading the bid of the appellant is clearly a case of bias. It is an unreasonable approach and an unfair gesture which crumbles the spirit of transparent tender.”

“33.6 We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the first respondent had erroneously added interest on Management Fee and Guarantee Fee when there is none and there is no ambiguity or vagueness. Once the appellant has indicated in the representation, in clear terms, as to how it should be treated, in the light of the order of the Division Bench, which TANGEDCO accepted to consider the bid of the appellant, the first respondent ought not to have loaded this amount on the basis of the Consultant’s Report. In all fairness, the Tender Accepting Authority of the first respondent should have excluded this amount, if both the bidders are to be treated on the touchstone of fairness and on the doctrine of level-playing field. This becomes necessary because the entire tender is tested on the larger public interest, that is to say, the implementation of the project in a time bound manner where cost is another important factor to be considered in the decision making. In a Welfare State, public authority cannot decide arbitrarily to throw away such an offer which they agreed to consider in the course of judicial proceedings, which we have referred to above. These factors, namely,

Page 28

28

adding interest on Management Fee and Guarantee Fee, have to be eschewed for the purpose of considering the bid of the appellant, otherwise, it will suffer from the vice of unreasonableness and irrationality.”

28. Eventually, it was directed as follows:-

“The TANGEDCO is directed to evaluate the appellant’s price bid along with the bid of the third respondent, in the light of our findings as above and also taking into consideration in all required parameters and the clarifications submitted by the appellant in its various representations, as directed by the Single Judge in the order dated 31.7.2014 and that of the Division Bench in its order dated 19.8.2014, afresh, at the earliest.”

29. Before this Court, the consultant’s report is criticized by

the 1st respondent stating thus:-

“2.3 The Consultant has made the following errors in the calculation of the said ‘Upfront Fees Including Interest’ in respect of CSEPDI’s bid:

Error 1 : Included Commitment Fees

Error 2 : Calculated and loaded interest on (a.) Guarantee Fee, (b.) Management Fee and (c.) Commitment Fee during the construction period of 36 months, i.e., IDC (Interest During Construction)

2.4 In 5.0 Item F – ‘Upfront Fees Including Interest’, the Consultant has loaded BHEL with Rs.8.925 Crores and CSEPDI with Rs. 801.180 Crores. The break-up of this Rs. 801.180 Crores in the Consultant’s Report is as follows:

Page 29

29

a. Guarantee Fee : Rs. 371.743 Crores b. Management Fee : Rs. 117.393 Crores c. Commitment Fee : Rs. 156.184 Crores d. Interest for 36 months

on a,b,c (Rs. 127.613 Crores) e. Interest from 37th to 42nd month: Rs.155.860 Crores on a,b, & c (Rs. 28.247 Crores)

Total : Rs. 801.180 Crores 2.4.1 There is no issue on entries a. and b. above 2.4.2 The issue is with regard to entries c. and d. above. 2.4.3. As regards c., no Commitment Fee can be loaded, for the reasons explained below.

2.4.4 As regards d., no interest can be loaded for the construction period of 36 months on Guarantee Fee and Management Fee, for the reasons explained below. The question of interest on Commitment Fee does not arise at all because no Commitment Fee can be loaded in the first place for evaluation of CSEPDI’s bid.

2.4.5 e. above will stand reduced as it depends on c. and d.

2.5 If the Consultant had correctly evaluated CSEPDI’s price bid by not including Commitment Fee and Interest on Guarantee Fee, Management Fee and Commitment Fee for the construction period of 36 months, then CSEPDI would be L1 by Rs. 171.600 Crores. Neither TANGEDCO nor BHEL have disputed this fact.

x x x x x x

2.7 The Consultant has confused Commitment Fee with an Upfront Fee. Commitment Fee, as stated

Page 30

30

above, is a contingency fee payable if the scheduled drawal does not take place. An Upfront Fee is levied by the lender as a definite fee without any contingency. This is made clear by PFC (BHEL’s lender) letter dated 30-04-2015 showing Commitment Fee and Upfront Fee as distinct alternatives. The Consultant has loaded BHEL with Upfront Fee. The Consultant has erroneously treated Commitment Fee as an Upfront Fee for CSEPDI and has in fact applied the label Upfront Fee in Item F”.

30. With regard to the commitment fee, various financial

nuances have been stated. We think it apt to reproduce some

of them:-

“2.8.3 When the earmarked funds are drawn, the interest agreed is payable. When the earmarked funds are not drawn, the interest is not payable but instead the Commitment Fee has to be paid on the amount not drawn.

2.8.4 CSEPDI’s Term Sheet clearly mentions that the Commitment Fee is payable on the cancelled portion of the loan.

2.8.5 The term ‘Accrued Drawal’ refers to the amount accured and available for drawal, but not drawn.

2.8.6 Commitment Fee is therefore only a contingent fee leviable if the funds are not drawn as per the Drawdown Schedule. It is more in the nature of a penalty in the event of a default by the borrower TANGEDCO and is payable by TANGEDCO. This cannot be added to the project cost for evaluation of the price bid.

x x x x x x

Page 31

31

2.8.8 The Repayment Schedule sets out the entire amount to be paid by TANGEDCO in the form of 48 Equated Quarterly Installments (EQI) starting from the 43rd months of the date of financial closure for 12 years. If there is one document to be termed as most important to evaluate the Price Bid, it is this Repayment Schedule. The Repayment Schedule is part of the Price Bid and is absolutely crucial as it caps the amount TANGEDCO has to pay. Not a single rupee needs to be paid over and above the amounts mentioned in the Repayment Schedule.

2.8.9 The EQI in the Repayment Schedule is based on the figure of Rs. 15,038.2914 Crores, which comprises of interest Rs. 5,025.3628 Crores on the Net Loan amount of Rs. 10,012.9286 Crores. The components of this Net Loan amount are:

a. Loan amount (85% of Total EPC Cost of 9709.3822 Crores) : Rs. 8252.9748/-

b. Interest at 7.2% p.a. on the above loan amount during the Construction Period of 36 : Rs. 896.2032/- months

c. Guarantee Fee : Rs. 392.0163/-

d. Management Fee : Rs. 123.7946/-

Moratorium Period interest for 37th to 42nd month (interest at 7.2% p.a. for 6 months on the total of a,b,c and d. above) : Rs. 347.9396/- Total : Rs.10,012.9286/-*

Page 32

32

*The Price Bid submitted by CSEPDI was Rs. 9709.3822 Crores and the above calculations were on that basis. However the admitted position is that of this sum, Rs. 509.339 Crores was disallowed by TANGEDCO and the Price Bid was arrived at Rs.9207.264 Crores. The Consultant has also evaluated CSEPDI’s bid at Rs. 9207.264 Crores”.

31. With regard to no interest on guarantee fee and

management fee during the construction period of 36 months

and no interest on Commitment fee, the stand of the 1st

respondent has been put forth in various compartments. We

think it apt to reproduce the relevant grounds:-

“2.9.1 The Consultant ought not to have loaded interest on Guarantee Fee and Management Fee during the construction period of 36 months, for the evaluation of CSEPDI’s Price Bid.

2.9.2 The very same Repayment Schedule calculation set out above shows that no interest is being charged on Guarantee Fee and Management Fee during the construction period of 36 months and does not form part of the amount which TANGEDCO has to repay. Not a single rupee needs to be paid over and above the amounts mentioned in the Repayment Schedule.

2.9.3 The only interest payable during the construction period of 36 months is interest calculated at 7.2% p.a. on the basic loan amount (85% of the EPC cost) and not on any other amount like Guarantee Fee and Management Fee. This is made clear in the specific calculation sheet for

Page 33

33

Interest During Construction submitted by CSEPDI in its Price Bid.

2.9.4 The Term Sheet submitted by CSEPDI outlines the fees required to be paid by TANGEDCO and the circumstances in which they are payable. In the very nature of this contract, the items chargeable have to be mentioned, not the items not chargeable. The contract requires to be evaluated based on what the bidder is charging TANGEDCO.

2.9.5 In CSEPDI’s Term Sheet, mention is made of Management Fee and SINOSURE Re-insurance (Guarantee Fee). No mention is made of interest on Management Fee and Guarantee Fee for the construction period of 36 months.

2.9.6 As far as interest on Commitment Fee is concerned, the same does not arise as Commitment Fee itself cannot be loaded for evaluating CSEPDI’s bid.”

32. The 1st respondent has also put forth that the Consultant

was not right in loading on CSEPDI bid the values for

Commitment Fee and interest thereon and Interest on

Guarantee Fee and Management Fee during the construction

period of 36 months, because that Clause 14.d.6 only states

that details of the Financing Charges should be clearly

outlined in the Financing Term Sheet and does not state that

it should be included in the price evaluation; that the

Page 34

34

reference to Commitment Fee in the Term Sheet clearly

indicates that it is only on the cancelled portion of the loan;

that the fee is to be paid only if the loan amount is not drawn

by the 18th, 30th and 42nd months in accordance with the

Drawdown Schedule; that Clause 12.1 and Clause 32.1.1

makes no mention of interest on Financing Charges (i.e., on

Management Fee and Guarantee Fee) during the IDC period;

that the words ‘Interest and Financing Charges’ cannot mean

interest on financing charges; that there is absolutely no

variance between the Term Sheet and Repayment Schedule

submitted by CSEPDI; that the Term Sheet and the entire

Financial Proposal/Price Bid, including the Repayment

Schedule, are to be read together; that the CSEPDI’s Term

Sheet only mentions that a Management Fee is to be paid but

does not mention any interest on Management Fee for the 36

month construction period (IDC period) and that the

Consultant ought not to have loaded the disputed amounts for

evaluating the price bid of CSEPDI. It is also the stand that on

a perusal of the Comparison Sheet filed would indicate that

Page 35

35

CSEPDI is L1 by Rs.171.600 crores if the evaluation is done

correctly. That apart, the 1st respondent has raised other

grounds which we need not refer to in detail.

33. The Corporation in support of the Consultant’s Report

has stated that the stand of the 1st respondent that Net Loan

Amount in the repayment schedule provided by respondent

No.1 gives no break up of how the said figure has been

reached; that one cannot find out from a bare perusal of the

said Repayment Schedule as to whether the respondent No.1

has factored the component of Commitment Fee in the Net

Loan Amount; that the respondent having not been declared

as L1 bidder as a post facto contention, now say that

Commitment Fee shall not be taken for evaluation in spite of

the fact that they themselves have quoted Commitment Fees

for Rs.164.702 crores with split up details in the price bid and

the above post facto contention is against all tenets of fairness

and justice; that had the respondent No.1 become L1, they

would have insisted that Commitment Fee being a financial

charge forms part of the loan and therefore is payable by the

Page 36

36

borrower i.e., the Corporation as per their price bids submitted

by respondent No.1; that since the respondent No.1 had not

been evaluated as L1, a contention is advanced that

Commitment Fee should not be taken for evaluation citing

universal definition.

34. On interest on management and guarantee fee, the stand

of the Corporation is that the CSEPDI-TRISHE CONSROTIUM

have quoted Rs. 123.9746 crores as Management fees and Rs.

392.0163 crores as Guarantee fee in their Price bid. There is

no dispute on the quantum of fees. The Consultant during the

evaluation have worked out interest @ 7.2 per annum on the

above fees as per the term sheet of the Industrial and

Commercial Bank of China Limited from the date on which

they fall due since the above fees form part of the debt to be

repaid by the appellant; that it is clear from the Tender

Conditions as well as the Term Sheet provided by Industrial

and Commercial Bank of China Limited and the clarification

dated 21.10.2013 (issued by Industrial and Commercial Bank

of China Limited) that appellant herein would be bound to pay

Page 37

37

the interest on the whole loan amount which will include the

financial charges.

35. The Corporation has quoted the relevant tender conditions

from the Term Sheet submitted by Industrial and Commercial

Bank of China Limited which are reproduced below:-

 “Clause 14(d)1 of the Instruction to Bidders under the Tender defines the “Loan Amount” to include at least 75% of the total EPC cost + 100% of interest during construction and Financing Cost. As per clause 14(d) 6 of the Instruction to Bidders under the Tender management fee and guarantee fee is part of the financial charges/financial cost.

 Under the term relating to “Interest rate” in term sheet submitted by Industrial and Commercial Bank of China it is clearly provided that the Borrower will pay interest on the full loan amount at a fixed rate per annum.

 Under the terms defined as “management fee” in the term sheet

Page 38

38

submitted by Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited it is specified that Management fee of 1.5% flat on the Loan Amount will be payable to the lender within a period of 60 days from the date of financial closure. Six months is the time given for financial closure and so 8 months in case of management fee in view of outer limit of 60 days.

 Similarly, under the terms relating to “Conditions Precedent”, the condition (d) the term sheet specifies that petitioners will be charged guarantee fee (termed as Insurance Policy in the term sheet) at the rate of 5% on 95% of the loan amount and the same will be payable from the end of the 6th month.

 According to the term sheet the amounts get debited to the Petitioners account at the end of the 8th month and 6th month respectively.

 All financial costs form part of the debt taken from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited. As per the clarification dated 21.10.2013 issued by Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited which is the Lender institution for Respondent no.1 all costs and fee charged by ICBC will form part of the debt financing”.

Page 39

39

36. From the aforesaid, it is vivid that the Consultant has

analysed the offers regard being had to the tender conditions.

Be it ingeminated that the analysis and determination made

by the financial consultant has been carried out before receipt

of any additional document from either side. The documents

were called for by the owner from both the qualifying bidders

in a transparent manner and the same have been considered

at the time of evaluation by the Consultant. Submission of

Mr. Sibal is that the evaluation is ex facie defective inasmuch

as the Consultant has loaded certain charges as a

consequence of which the price has gone up. Mr. Rohatgi,

learned Attorney General appearing for BHEL and Mr. Prasad,

learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation would

submit that the evaluation is founded on definities leaving

nothing to any kind of contingency. They have referred to the

Term Sheet and what is put up by Industrial and Commercial

Bank of China Limited. At this juncture we are obliged to say

that in a complex fiscal evaluation the Court has to apply the

doctrine of restraint. Several aspects, clauses, contingencies,

Page 40

40

etc. have to be factored. These calculations are best left to

experts and those who have knowledge and skills in the field.

The financial computation involved, the capacity and efficiency

of the bidder and the perception of feasibility of completion of

the project have to be left to the wisdom of the financial

experts and consultants. The courts cannot really enter into

the said realm in exercise of power of judicial review. We

cannot sit in appeal over the financial consultant’s

assessment. Suffice it to say, it is neither ex facie erroneous

nor can we perceive as flawed for being perverse or absurd.

37. Before parting with the case we are constrained to add

something. We do so with immense pain. The respondent,

before finalization of the financial bid submitted series of

representations and seeing the silence of the owner it knocked

at the doors of the writ court which directed for consideration

of the representations. We are disposed to think that the High

Court at that stage should have exercised caution. If the

courts would exercise power of judicial review in such a

manner it is most likely to cause confusion and also bring

Page 41

41

jeopardy in public interest. An aggrieved party can approach

the Court at the appropriate stage, not when the bids are

being considered. We do not intend to specify. It is appreciable

the owner in certain kind of tenders call the bidders for

negotiations to show fairness transparently. But the present

case is not a one of such nature. Once the price bid was

opened, a bidder could not have submitted representations on

his own and seek a mandamus from the Court to take certain

aspects into consideration. We have stressed this aspect only

to highlight the role of the Court keeping in mind the

established principle of restraint.

38. In view of our preceding analysis we are of the considered

opinion that the Division Bench through the delineation has

adopted the approach of an appellate forum or authority and

extended the principle of judicial review to certain areas to

which it could not have and, therefore, the judgment and

order of the Division Bench followed the path of error in

continuum. Consequently, the inevitable conclusion is

unsettlement of the impugned order and we so direct. In the

Page 42

42

ultimate eventual the appeals stand allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

..............................J. (Dipak Misra)

..............................J. (Shiva Kirti Singh) New Delhi; October 18, 2016.

TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. (TANGEDCO), REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING Vs CSEPDI - TRISHE CONSORTIUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. (TANGEDCO), REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING Vs CSEPDI - TRISHE CONSORTIUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR