Kerala State Electricity Board Limited Tenders Dating, Advertisements
Dec 21, After processing the bids received in the tenders dated and ,. KSEB Ltd entered into power purchase agreements with 7. IT/CU/IPDS/PMA/ dated released by Chief. Engineer (IT&CR). 2. e-Tender id _KSEB__1. 3. Corrigenda dated dated Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. is pleased to accept your offer and place this. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited,VydyuthiBhavanam Kannur-2,. Kerala State . Tender No:KSEB/CEDNM/DO/GEN/10/Dated: Competitive on Date &Time of opening of Bid 16/10/;11 AM. Sd/-.
This is more so when the modern trend is also to examine the unreasonableness of a term in such contracts where the bargaining power is unequal so that these are not negotiated contracts but standard form contracts between unequals.
There is an obvious difference in the contracts between private parties and contracts to which the State is party. Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest.
This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality.
It is a different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases W. However, to the extent, challenge is made on the ground of violation of Art. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every cases irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto.
An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Art.
Even assuming that it is necessary to import the concept of presence of some public element in a State action to attract Art. We, therefore find it difficult and unrealisitc to exclude the State actions in contractual matters, after the contract has been made, from the purview of judicial review to test its validity on the anvil of Art. It can no longer be doubted at this point of time that Art.
See Ramana Dayaram Shetty V. AIR Supreme Court AIR Supreme Courtwhile the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by the statute or rule, was held to be wide, it was emphasised as imperative and implicit in Art.
The wide sweep of Art. Further contrary to Kurien E. Kalathil's case supraafter analysing the various decisions of the Supreme Court and quoting extensively from Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case, the Supreme Court in a later decision of ABL International Ltd.
In that case a contention was raised to the effect that for the W. After quoting from the decision of K. It is clear from the observations of this Court in the said case, though a writ was not issued on the facts of that case, this Court has held that on a given set of facts if a State acts in an arbitrary manner, even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the Court by way of Writ under Article of the Constitution and the Court depending on facts of the said case is empowered to grant the relief ".
Emphasis supplied Again after quoting from Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case the Court again held thus: It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly W.
Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants, the first respondent, as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the above said requirement of Article 14then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent Tested on the anvil of the above legal principles, I shall examine whether this case qualifies as one coming within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in those cases.
From then onwards, the Consortium was waiting for the execution of the formal contract to start the work. However, because of various reasons, none of which can be attributed to the Consortium, the matter dragged on, without execution of the formal contract and issue of work order. In the meantime, as evidenced by Exts. P4, P5 and P6, the Consortium was repeatedly W. Still the KSEB, perhaps because of circumstances beyond their control also, could not finally award the contract to the Consortium.
In the meanwhile at the request of the KSEB, the Consortium was, from time to time, extending the period of validity of their offer and the bank guarantees furnished by them.
The KSEB was able to obtain the revised environmental clearance from the Government of India after the earlier one was quashed by this court, only on That environmental clearance was challenged before this court and was set aside, although in the meanwhile Ext.
The petitioner disputes that this is the letter of acceptance constituting the formation of the contract about which I shall refer to later on. Thereafter also, the Consortium repeatedly W. The Consortium suggested an increased price of Rs. Apparently the KSEB also tacitly accepted the need for price escalation on account of the long delay in awarding the contract and issuing work order and invited the Consortium for a meeting with the Full Board.
Again at the request of the KSEB the validity period of the offer and the bank guarantees were extended by the Consortium. P32 and P33 the Consortium intimated the KSEB that the extension of validity of their offer was on the understanding that the impact of the economic changes which had taken place after the submission of their bid and other points raised would be discussed and agreed upon before the award of the contract.
The fact that the KSEB had no doubt at least about the necessity to revise the contract price is clear from the fact that they had invited the Consortium for discussion on the subject, during which, they never insisted that the Consortium should stick on to the original bid price accepted.
On the other hand the Board referred the W. Further deliberations followed and the Full Board of the KSEB decided to accept the negotiated price and to revise the letter of award in favour of the Consortium at the negotiated price of Rs. P36 letter was W. BHEL for electromechanical equipments and works of the project. A reading of Ext. P36 would make it abundantly clear that on HCC - BHEL Consortium having kept their offer valid till date is likely to approach court of law against cancellation of tender which may further delay the implementation of the project".
P50A, in a sudden volte face, even without waiting for the response from the government to Ext. P36, despite requesting repeatedly for such response on R1 d and R1 eimmediately after obtaining environmental clearance on P39], the Board unilaterally accorded sanction to re-tender the work subject to approval by the Government.
This decision of the KSEB only is challenged by the petitioner as arbitrary, unreasonable and against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For deciding this question, it is not necessary for me to go into the interpretation of any of the tender conditions, W.
Therefore none of the disabilities sought to be made out by the respondents stands in my way in considering the matter under Article of the Constitution of India. Therefore, at least on the question as to whether the action of the KSEB in reversing their earlier decision is arbitrary and unreasonable, this writ petition is perfectly maintainable.
Yet another question may arise in this case as to whether administrative decisions taken and orders issued by KSE Board in reference to contractual works, are amenable to writ jurisdiction and are liable to be tested under Article 14 in so far as those decisions and orders are taken and issued by the Board as a public statutory body. I am spared of the task of examining on first principles or wading through precedents to find an answer to this question since, on very similar facts, a Division Bench of this Court had, in a matter between the very same parties, in Hindustan Construction Co.
AIR SCanswered the question in the affirmative. It would be useful to refer to the facts of that case briefly to show W. HCC claimed compensation for delay in execution of a contract undertaken by them on behalf of the Board. The Board constituted an ad-hoc committee to go into this claim, which committee recommended payment of Rs.
Another sub committee appointed by the Board also considered the matter. The Board took a unanimous decision to pay a sum of Rs. However the amount was not paid. A writ petition seeking mandamus to pay was admitted on Ultimately the Board on While allowing the appeal the W. Though the decision taken by the Board and the orders issued by the Board are in reference to the contractual work, in so far as the decision and the orders are concerned, they are taken by the Board as a public statutory body.
Those orders are amenable to and are liable to be tested under Article 14 of the Constitution of India After referring to decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject, the Division Bench further held: The decision and the orders taken by the Board have to satisfy the test of fairness and reasonableness envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The action of the Board has got a public law element in it. The action of the Board bears public character with public interest and their's is administrative decision and are impeached on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, writ petition under Article of the Constitution is clearly maintainable.
As held by the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation's case referred above, there is no limitation under Article of the Constitution except self imposed limitations. The arm of the court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Court is empowered to give proper relief and grant the same in accordance with law.
Since the public law remedy given by Article of the Constitution is not only to issue prerogative writs but also to issue any order or direction to enforce any of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. Consequently the Board was directed to pass orders on the basis of the earlier decision and to make payment to HCC accordingly. The facts of that case are very similar to this case; perhaps "more similar" in the sense that in that decision the KSEB had at least advanced several reasons to deviate from the earlier decision, whereas in this case no plausible reasons are advanced for deviating from the earlier decision of the Board taken on That being so I am more than satisfied that this writ petition challenging the decision of the Board to deviate from the earlier decision on as arbitrary and unreasonable is perfectly maintainable.
Now, I shall proceed to examine the justifiability of the W. The initial decision to award the contract to the Consortium itself was after a long drawn out tender process of examining both the technical and financial credentials putting the same through a series of evaluation processes at various levels which have been summarised while narrating the facts of the case, at the beginning of this judgment.
The only dispute is as to whether the contract price is to be refixed commensurate with the rise in costs over a period of almost seven years, after the initial acceptance of the bid of the Consortium on Nobody even alleges that the delay in finalisation of the contract is on account of anything attributable to the Consortium.
May be the delay was due to reasons beyond the control of everybody.
The fact that the Consortium would not be able to undertake the work at the bid price of is also W. The KSEB was only too aware of that fact and that is why they went about holding discussions with the Consortium on their request for refixation of the bid amount.
They also appointed an independent Central Government Agency viz. WAPCOS, who was very conversant with the project, they having earlier conducted the Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment study of the project for the purpose of environmental clearance, to ascertain the reasonableness of the revised bid price suggested by the Consortium.
The WAPCOS suggested a revised bid price, which was subjected to further evaluation and discussion by the Board, which ultimately took a very well considered decision on to award the contract to the Consortium at the revised bid price. The justifiability of that decision is more than clear from the very elaborate letter dated Ext.
P36which runs into 30 typed pages detailing the entire history leading up to the decision of the Board dated seeking Government approval for that decision. Therefore it would require very strong reasons to reverse that decision, which should be apparent on the face of W.
P50A decision datedin one sentence ordered thus: Therefore even if there are reasons, the petitioner and this Court are kept in the dark about those reasons or they do not want to divulge those reasons. P55 letter dated communicated to the Consortium after the filing of the writ petition on The same reads thus: As per this office order No. You were also requested to execute the agreement at the earliest and start the work within 30 thirty days on receipt of the letter.
But instead of executing the agreement and starting the work, you, vide letter under reference 5 demanded escalation for the work.
Your request for escalation has been examined and it is found that escalation cannot be granted since the contract is for a fixed amount with no provision for escalation. Therefore, this office order No. P50B datedi. P50A order directing re-tender. Strangely in that letter the references are to the letters dated andwhich are only reminders to Ext.
P36 dated and not Ext. To a finally negotiated figure of Rs. This is when the contract is a fixed one, containing no provision for escalation is also noteworthy that the successful contractor HCC-BHEL Consortium had agreed to extend the validity of their total quote of Rs. The consortium accepted this though with a demand for escalation in quoted price. The increase in cost is sought to be justified on the ground that if tenders were invited afresh, the rates would be higher. This is however not a valid argument because there is really no transparency in giving an escalation of Rs.
If the work is retendered and the rate goes up beyond Rs. Let me examine the sustainability of the reasons stated in Exts. First of all it is interesting to note that after issuing Ext. P50 letter of the Consortium for reassessment of the bid price till commencement of the work, stating that, that letter was forwarded to the Secretary of the KSEB for further necessary action without even mentioning about Ext.
The reasons stated in Ext. P55 is that the contract was W. This reason is put forward without taking into account all what had happened fromthe date when the Board accorded sanction to award the project work to the Consortium for Rs.
No contractor can do such enormous work in August at the rate quoted by them in the yeari. That the Full Board had both technical expertise and common sense in abundance is clear from their decision dated P55 is a negation of the Board's own technical expertise and common sense, to say the least.
Further, the statement in Ext. P55 that the request of the Consortium for W. P55 is a contradiction in terms and in fact an attempt to deceive themselves and therefore cannot be accepted as a reason, much less an acceptable reason, at all. P28, which is the letter referred to in Ext. P55 as not having been complied with was issued, the work of the project was not being capable of being started within 30 days thereof at all, if for no other reason, for the reason that even assuming that Ext.
P28 is a letter of acceptance contemplated in clause P1 tender conditions which itself is disputed by the petitionerclause P1 grants minimum 35 days for the successful bidder to complete their part of the contract. Further, after the letter of acceptance, the Board is required to forward two unsigned originals of the agreement to be executed by the W.
At no point of time, the Board had requested the Consortium to execute the agreement for the contract. Still further, at that time the contract could not have been finalised since the environmental clearance granted by the Government of India was set aside by this Court by Ext. P37 judgment, which was finally granted by Ext. P39 only on Therefore, the work could not have been started any time before It is not as if the Board was not aware of these ground realities. They in fact had got the Consortium to renew the validity of their bid and the Bank guarantees from time to time, even as late as on If the bid of the Consortium for Rs.
Further as per clause In fact in paragraph 43 of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, W. P28 was not a letter of acceptance as contemplated as per clause Again, if there is no provision in the tender conditions for escalation, why did the Board go about discussing the revised price with the Consortium and refer the reasonableness of the revised price suggested by the Consortium, to WAPCOS for their opinion?
On the other hand, as is evident from Ext. P55 does not make any sense at all. P1 tender conditions and Ext. R1 a general conditions, the prohibition is only against escalation after the contract is concluded. Here, in the counter affidavit of the KSEB, they repeatedly contend that there is no concluded contract between the parties in this case. The contention of the W. As I have repeatedly said, when the delay is not attributable to the Consortium, they cannot be pinned down to their original bid price ofinsince as is evident from Ext.
P36, the Board itself accepted in that the work could not have been executed by anybody for a price less than Rs. On the other hand the Board itself accepts the fact that, if re-tendered, the bid price is likely to be much higher than Rs. P55, the Board has been trying to deceive themselves, if not others, to say the least. It is crystal clear that even as late as on R1 e letter to the Government, the Board was still sticking to their decision dated Then barely 12 days thereafter, without any ostensible reason, without W.
P50A was issued on No remotely plausible reason has been pleaded by the Board in their counter affidavits for their sudden turn around and change of mind. What happened between Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that the action of the KSEB is arbitrary and unreasonable, which would not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, by any stretch of imagination.
Now let us turn to the stand of the Government as contained in Ext. P36in spite of reminders the Government did not find it expedient to respond to the request of the KSEB for approval of their decision to award the contract at the revised price of Rs. While echoing the stand of the KSEB that there is no provision for escalation of price in the contract which is a fixed one, the Government advocates re-tender for the sake of transparency, W.
The argument of lack of provision for escalation in the tender conditions has already been considered and rejected by me hereinbefore.
Regarding the other reason, I am of opinion that the lack of transparency is in the present action of the KSEB and the Government. It is no secret that the State is starved of funds even for day to day activities, not to speak of developmental activities. They are finding it difficult to find funds for repair of roads which have been practically destroyed during the last monsoon.
They have no funds for providing drinking water facility to people of various parts of the State, who have been clamouring for the same, for years. The Board is clamouring for upward revision of electricity tariff for quite some time on the ground that they are incurring heavy losses. It has been reported in the press that the Government has accorded sanction to the KSEB to impose load shedding in the State for half an hour between 6 and 10 p.
Both are aware that a re-tender would result in the rates going up still higher, how higher nobody W. Perhaps the fact that in the bid security prescribed in the notification inviting tenders and the bid security furnished by the Consortium was only Rs. P56 tender notification is Rs. The Board after thorough evaluation is satisfied that the rate of Rs. The State is willing to sacrifice a few crores of rupees which the people of this State can ill afford for the sake of imaginary transparency in their decision.
The State is in dire need of additional power resources as fast as possible which is clear from the decision to impose load shedding. The techno-economic clearance for the project is valid only up to If the work is not started before that date, the KSEB has to go through the cumbersome and time consuming process of getting the clearance all over again resulting in further delay of the start of the work of the project.
Going by the earlier experience, the tender process which started on 6. Therefore, a re-tender would certainly result W. Pre Qualification Please refer Tender documents.
- Supply of 220kV bus support Insulator for220kV substation Edamon under PSDF Scheme
- Sports Persons vacancy in KSEB Recruitment 2018
- KSEB Recruitment 2018
Timely planning cuts power purchase costs in Kerala Thursday, 08 February Like many other modern infrastructure facilities, electricity also was first brought to the state by a British company — the Kannan Devan Hill Produce Company, Munnar.
The formation of the Electricity Department paved the way for notable developments in the field. The vast potential for hydroelectric generation in the state prompted the state authorities to take steps to establish stations for hydroelectric generation. By that time, a comparable electric transmission network had also been completed with 66 kV substations at Alappuzha, Mavelikkara, Kothamangalam, Kundara, Kalamasserry, Viyyur, Aluva, and Thiruvananthapuram, which were also commissioned in itself during April -May months The Kerala state Electricity board started functioning under the direction of a newly formed Kerala government, on 31 March Its capacity was Best wishes for all your future endeavors.
The departments shall not be responsible for non-accessibility of e-Procurement portal due to internet connectivity issues and technical glitches at bidder's end. Majority of the accidents are caused by a total neglect of safety measures.
Hindustan Construction Company vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 1 January,
The future depends on what you do today. Explore Today's as well as Weekly updates of Employment News at Fresherslive, which you can't find anywhere else. Be the First Person to explore it. After a spell of 17 years, the attention of the state authorities turned to newer forms of generating energy.
Facility management services Tender Value: On the controversial Athirapally hydel project, he said he was all for the project, but the MW initiative did not stand a chance at present due to the massive opposition.
India Tender Details Document type: Ina Thermal Power Station was established under government ownership at Thiruvananthapuram for production of electrical energy on commercial lines. The electrical supervisory interview mainly concentrates on the following areas.
In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sections and 7 of section and section of the Electricity Act Central Act 36 of the Government of Kerala had issued notification vide G. Tender Notice Bidding type: The fuel mentioned in the RC book only has to be used. In exercise of powers conferred under sub-sections and 7 of section of the Electricity Act,State Government vide the notification G. Shankargouda Patil Office Telephone Number: Tenders are invited for Replacing lt oh bare conductor by lt ab cable and shifting the consumer meters outside the consumer premises on turnkey basis under 33 11kv sub station aehroi, daud sarai, amroha and gulariya Tender Type: