BMM ISPAT LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner company is before this Court assailing the communication dated 27.04.2016 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The second respondent-power company by the said communication has informed the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner company is not pre-qualified for participation in the bid stage. The petitioner company therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court.

(2.) The second respondent power company published the Request For Qualification (RFQ) for agreement for procurement of power of 1000 MW capacity under medium term by ESCOMs of Karnataka from power station located in southern region under lumpsum tariff option. The petitioner company is a coal based captive electric generating station in its Steel plant. The petitioner company accordingly responded to the RFQ of the second respondent power company. According to the petitioner, all requirements of the RFQ has been satisfied by uploading the necessary documents so as to be eligible for consideration by the second respondent.

(3.) The second respondent through the objection statement has contended that the petitioner company has not submitted the documents as per the requirement contained in clause 2.12.2(ii), 2.2.3(i) and 2.2.4. In that view it is contended that the certificate of the auditor furnished along with the documents is not in consonance with the form prescribed in Annexure-II to the bid document. Further the power of attorney is incomplete as the common seal of the company was not visible. That apart the Board resolution for execution of the power of attorney was not furnished. The annual report submitted did not indicate the details of the equity share holders. Hence, it is contended that the application of the petitioner was not considered as complete in all respects which in fact was intimated to the petitioner through the impugned communication. As such the petitioner cannot make out any grievance in that regard is the contention.