The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Land Acquisition Collector cannot adjudicate disputes relating to entitlement or apportionment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The Court ruled that where a bona fide dispute exists, the Collector is statutorily bound to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 76 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri passed the judgment in Gurdeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (CWP-11737-2026). Background of the Case The dispute arose from agreements to sell executed in 2005 and 2006 between late Attar Singh and the petitioners concerning agricultural land situated in Punjab. Although a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners, subsequent litigation led to its cancellation by the High Court in contempt proceedings in 2008. However, while directing...
In a significant ruling concerning competitive bidding in the power sector, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has set aside the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission's (MERC) order approving tariff for procurement of Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) capacity by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL).
The Tribunal held that the bidding process stood vitiated because a material condition relating to utilisation of Battery Energy Storage Systems was introduced after completion of the bidding process, thereby altering the fundamental basis on which bids had been submitted.
Background of the Dispute
The appeals arose from MERC's order dated 6 March 2026 approving tariff discovered through competitive bidding for procurement of 2000 MW / 4000 MWh Battery Energy Storage Systems with Viability Gap Funding (VGF) support for a period of 15 years.
The bidding documents originally contemplated operation of the BESS project on the basis of approximately one cycle per day. Under this arrangement, developers expected utilisation of around 5475 cycles during the contractual tenure.
However, after submission of bids, the Ministry of Power issued a communication requiring MSEDCL to retain a contractual right to utilise the BESS for at least 6300 cycles during the contract period without additional cost.
Developers Challenge the Change
The project developers argued that the new requirement fundamentally altered the commercial and technical assumptions on which they had participated in the tender.
According to the appellants, achieving 6300 cycles could require additional investment and expose them to risks relating to VGF eligibility. They contended that this requirement was never part of the original Request for Selection (RfS) documents and was introduced only after bidding had concluded.
APTEL's Findings
The Tribunal accepted the developers' concerns and observed that the apprehension regarding loss of VGF support was genuine and not merely speculative. The Tribunal noted that once MSEDCL retained a contractual right to demand utilisation of 6300 cycles, such right could be exercised at any stage during the 15-year contract period.
APTEL further held that the Ministry's communication effectively introduced a substantial and essential requirement that bidders could not have factored into their bids. The change exposed developers to additional expenditure and potential adverse consequences without any corresponding right to seek revision of the discovered tariff.
The Tribunal rejected arguments that subsequent clarifications issued by the Ministry of Power and assurances offered by MSEDCL cured the defect. It held that the contractual right to utilise 6300 cycles remained capable of enforcement at any time during the project period.
"Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed"
In one of the most important observations of the judgment, APTEL held that introducing such a condition after completion of the bidding process amounted to changing the rules after the game had already commenced. The Tribunal concluded that such an approach is legally impermissible.
Final Directions
Allowing all appeals, APTEL:
- Set aside MERC's impugned order.
- Quashed the entire bidding process.
- Quashed all Letters of Intent issued pursuant to the tender.
- Directed MSEDCL to return security deposits within four weeks.
- Directed return of bank guarantees submitted by the bidders.
Significance of the Judgment
The ruling reinforces a well-established principle governing public procurement and competitive bidding: material conditions of a tender cannot be altered after bids have been submitted.
The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for future renewable energy and storage procurements by utilities across India, particularly where government clarifications or policy changes are sought to be incorporated after the bidding process has commenced.In a significant ruling concerning competitive bidding in the power sector, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has set aside the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission's (MERC) order approving tariff for procurement of Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) capacity by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL).
The Tribunal held that the bidding process stood vitiated because a material condition relating to utilisation of Battery Energy Storage Systems was introduced after completion of the bidding process, thereby altering the fundamental basis on which bids had been submitted.
Background of the Dispute
The appeals arose from MERC's order dated 6 March 2026 approving tariff discovered through competitive bidding for procurement of 2000 MW / 4000 MWh Battery Energy Storage Systems with Viability Gap Funding (VGF) support for a period of 15 years.
The bidding documents originally contemplated operation of the BESS project on the basis of approximately one cycle per day. Under this arrangement, developers expected utilisation of around 5475 cycles during the contractual tenure.
However, after submission of bids, the Ministry of Power issued a communication requiring MSEDCL to retain a contractual right to utilise the BESS for at least 6300 cycles during the contract period without additional cost.
Developers Challenge the Change
The project developers argued that the new requirement fundamentally altered the commercial and technical assumptions on which they had participated in the tender.
According to the appellants, achieving 6300 cycles could require additional investment and expose them to risks relating to VGF eligibility. They contended that this requirement was never part of the original Request for Selection (RfS) documents and was introduced only after bidding had concluded.
APTEL's Findings
The Tribunal accepted the developers' concerns and observed that the apprehension regarding loss of VGF support was genuine and not merely speculative. The Tribunal noted that once MSEDCL retained a contractual right to demand utilisation of 6300 cycles, such right could be exercised at any stage during the 15-year contract period.
APTEL further held that the Ministry's communication effectively introduced a substantial and essential requirement that bidders could not have factored into their bids. The change exposed developers to additional expenditure and potential adverse consequences without any corresponding right to seek revision of the discovered tariff.
The Tribunal rejected arguments that subsequent clarifications issued by the Ministry of Power and assurances offered by MSEDCL cured the defect. It held that the contractual right to utilise 6300 cycles remained capable of enforcement at any time during the project period.
"Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed"
In one of the most important observations of the judgment, APTEL held that introducing such a condition after completion of the bidding process amounted to changing the rules after the game had already commenced. The Tribunal concluded that such an approach is legally impermissible.
Final Directions
Allowing all appeals, APTEL:
- Set aside MERC's impugned order.
- Quashed the entire bidding process.
- Quashed all Letters of Intent issued pursuant to the tender.
- Directed MSEDCL to return security deposits within four weeks.
- Directed return of bank guarantees submitted by the bidders.
Significance of the Judgment
The ruling reinforces a well-established principle governing public procurement and competitive bidding: material conditions of a tender cannot be altered after bids have been submitted.
The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for future renewable energy and storage procurements by utilities across India, particularly where government clarifications or policy changes are sought to be incorporated after the bidding process has commenced.
Comments
Post a Comment