The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Anil Ambani’s Reliance Energy Ltd (REL) challenging MSRDC’s decision to disqualify it from bidding for the Rs 2,600 crore Sewri-Nhava Sheva sealink project.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Anil Ambani’s Reliance Energy Ltd (REL) challenging MSRDC’s decision to disqualify it from bidding for the Rs 2,600 crore Sewri-Nhava Sheva sealink project.
Once ready, the 22.5 km, six lane sealink, also known as the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link project, will connect Mumbai with the mainland. REL had moved the HC challenging Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation’s (MSRDC) decision to disqualify it from bidding for the project as it failed to satisfy a financial ground.
However, Justice JN Patel and Justice SC Dharmadhikari dismissed the petition stating that if the MSRDC is of a “bonafide opinion that it would not be safe to allow the petitioner to participate further then in judicial review we would not substitute our views (on theirs).” The judges, however, allowed REL time to file an appeal in the Supreme Court and stayed the opening of the other bids for two weeks.
Five other bidders in the fray include three consortia. One of them is led by Sea King Infrastructure Ltd, in which the Mukesh Ambani is believed to have a majority stake. The others include IFFCO, Larsen&Tubro and Gammon India.
MSRDC had invited pre-qualification bids for the project in August 2004. The bidders were to be screened to ascertain their financial and technical qualification to bid for the project.
The successful bidder would design, finance, build and operate the sealink and finally transfer it to the MSRDC after recovering costs through toll.
REL entered the bid as a consortium with Korea-based Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. In October it learned that the other bidders had been issued Request for Qualification documents. After filing a Right to Information application, REL was informed that it had been disqualified as Hyundai had failed to satisfy the criteria of net cash profit for the requisite number of years.
REL challenged MSRDC’s decision citing divergent accounting standards. However, the HC noted that MSRDC had sought opinions of two expert bodies before taking the decision. “We are not an appellate authority, which can sit in judgement over the authority of experts,” the judges stated.
Given the peculiar facts of the case, the HC order stated that the petitioner (REL) does not deserve any opportunity to have their consortium bid considered further.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}