MSEDCL had rejected A2Z's technical bid and hence its financial bid was not opened. MSEDCL has also been directed to open A2Z's financial bid for two divisions of Aurangabad.
MSEDCL officials told TOI that as on date it was difficult to say what would be immediate outcome.
"MSEDCL top bosses might decide to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court. Another possibility is that MSEDCL will comply with the order. In this case if A2Z's financial bid is higher then Spanco might challenge the decision in the apex court. The franchisee take over has only been delayed but not thwarted by the judgment," an official said.
Eleven companies had submitted bids for Nagpur's three divisions. MSEDCL rejected the technical bid of Gurgaon-based A2Z claiming that the company had not notarised the power of attorney. Secondly, it was not a public limited company when it purchased the tender. A2Z became a public limited company a day before the last date of submission of tenders.
MSEDCL then went ahead with the process and opened the financial bid of the ten companies. ITES company Spanco Limited bagged the tender on April 28.
Meanwhile, A2Z challenged MSEDCL's decision on April 30 in Bombay high court stressing that its lapses were very minor in nature whereas MSEDCL had agreed to relax some major conditions as demanded by other companies.
It claimed that its financial bid was higher than the successful bidders for both Nagpur and Aurangabad. Spanco Ltd joined the litigation as an intervenor.
As the court was closing for summer vacation, it fixed the date of hearing on June 10. It was later postponed to June 25. A division bench of justices Dilip Sinha and Mridula Bhatkar heard both parties on June 25 and 26 and asked them to submit written notes of argument within a week.
The court said that it would pronounce its judgment in a month. The court in its judgment held the contentions of A2Z valid and directed MSEDCL to open its financial bid in 21 days.
0 comments:
Post a Comment