RAJESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the entire tendering process pursuant to NIT dtd. 13/3/2024.

(2.) A Notice Inviting Tender (in short, "NIT") was issued on 13/3/2024 for power procurement for Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (in short, "MSEDCL"). Under the NIT, a composite bid for 1600 MW thermal power and 5000 MW solar power was to be evaluated through a competitive bidding process. Under the NIT dtd. 13/3/2024, the bid submission due date was 25/4/2024 and the technical bids were required to be evaluated on the same day one hour after the deadline for submitting the bid. On 30/6/2024, the bidders were intimated through Addendum No.15 that they had an option to opt for composite bid for half of the published capacity, that is, a composite bid of 800 MW thermal power and 2500 MW solar power was also acceptable. In line with this clarification, Corrigendum XI was issued on 8/7/2025 and the date and time for closure of the procurement of tender documents and the last date for submission of the bid were extended to 31/7/2024. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:

(3.) The main ground of challenge laid to the NIT dtd. 13/3/2024 is that the tender process contravenes Sec. 63 of the Electricity Act and violates mandatory guidelines for long-term procurement of the electricity from Thermal Power Stations under the Thermal Guidelines and the Guidelines for procurement of power from the grid connected through Solar-PV. According to the petitioner, the NIT has been issued without following the mandatory Guidelines under clause 4 of the Thermal Guidelines dtd. 6/3/2019 and without seeking approval from the appropriate Government under clause 3 of the Solar Guidelines dtd. 28/7/2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in "Energy Watchdog" 2017 (14) SCC 80, Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. and contended that the National Tariff Policy has a statutory force and the procurement of power must be strictly by following transparency and competition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Resource Adequacy Study by the CEA was not in place when the NIT was issued on 13/3/2024 and the post facto approval taken by the MSEDCL for deviating from the Thermal Guidelines and Solar Guidelines from the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, "MERC") was not bona fide. Questioning the manner in which the NIT was published in hot haste without any Resource Adequacy Study Report which was expected by 31/10/2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in bye-passing the mandatory guidelines for seeking prior approval for the deviations the interest of the consumers and other stake-holders was compromised. The petitioner contends that the tender process is flawed in law, lacks transparency, suppresses the competition among the bidders and the NIT was issued contrary to the object behind the Electricity Act, National Tariff Policy and the Solar and Thermal Guidelines.