The bidding race for India’s longest sealink expressway, the MTHL connecting the Mumbai to mainland Navi Mumbai has now reached the corridors of SC.
SC to hear REL-Hynudai plea that claims being barred from bidding on flimsy grounds
The bidding race for India’s longest sealink expressway, the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) connecting the Mumbai to mainland Navi Mumbai has now reached the corridors of Supreme Court in New Delhi. Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Energy Ltd-led consortium, which had been disqualified from the bidding process for the Rs4,000-crore MTHL project, has filed in a special leave petition in the Supreme Court last week.
The SLP is likely to be heard today. The SLP follows a Bombay High Court order that though termed the disqualification by Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) as “arbitrary”, refused to intervene in the administrative decision taken by the authorities.
While providing an interim relief to the REL-led consortium, the HC had restrained MSRDC from opening the financial bids and allowed REL-led consortium four weeks from June 4, 2007 to appeal against the order.
A consortium of IL&FS-Sea King Infrastructure Limited (SKIL), now controlled by Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), is the only prequalified bidder to put in a financial bid, which is being cited as a case of single bid by REL. The sealink is also expected to provide accessibility to the Navi Mumbai special economic zone being planned up by RIL.
The other two bidding consortia to have pre-qualified include Larsen & Toubro-Gammon India-Sistema (Russia), and Indian Farmers Fertilisers Corporation-Skanska Cementation-Italian Thai development- Meada (Japan). But sources claimed that with L&T doing a contract for RIL in its Jamnagar refinery, it withdrew from the race.
REL-Hyundai consortium was disqualified by MSRDC on the grounds of not meeting financial qualifications against which the consortium filed a writ petition in Bombay HC in October 2006. The consortium, which has maintained being disqualified on flimsy grounds, claimed that REL provided all clarifications to MSRDC, including opinion from leading accounting experts.
){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}