1.Issue Notice. Mr.N.Nithyanandam, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2.This writ petition is directed to lay challenge to an International Competitive Bidding notice dated 05.11.2016.
3.To be noted, via the impugned notice, bids were invited for Selection of Mine Developer and Operator (MDO) for Pachwara South Coal Block (9.00 MTPA) Dumka District of Jharkhand State, on a turnkey basis.
4.The petitioner is aggrieved on account of incorporation of Clause 2.1 in the tender documents. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, even though the impugned notice claims to invite bids from International Competitors, it has incorporated in Clause 2.1 of the tender documents; a condition, which stipulates that the bidder should have experience of having operated a open cast mine in India.
5.Learned Senior Counsel says that this is contrary to what the impugned notice professes, while inviting bids from International Bidders. In order words, if, international bidders were being invited to participate in the tender, then, according to the learned Senior Counsel, insistence on experience in having operated an open cast mine in India was meaningless.
6. However, on the Learned Senior Counsel being queried, he conceded that the petitioner by itself had no experience either in India or outside India of having operated an open cast mine. Learned Senior counsel further conceded that even though it is averred in paragraph 5 of the affidavit accompanying the petition that it is a Joint Venture Company, having mining experience outside India, neither the details of the joint venture partner had been culled out nor were the particulars of the shareholders set out concerning their experience in open cast mining.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.
pri
7.Having regard to these circumstances, in my view, the petitioner would have no locus standi to challenge the impugned condition contained in Clause 2.1 of the tender document. The writ petition appears to be a proxy battle for an entity hidden in the shadow of the petitioner.
8.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected pending applications are also closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
24.01.2017 pri Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To NLC India Limited Rep. by its General Manager Having its Registered Office at:
First Floor, No.8, Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, FSD, Egmore Complex, of Food Corporation of India, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
W.P.No.1747 of 2017 And W.M.P.Nos.1733 and 1734 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in