Madras High Court
M/S.Reco Process Pumps vs The Development Commissioner/ on 19 March, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
2025:MHC:718
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on : 04.03.2025
Orders pronounced on : 19.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.35874 of 2023 and 41132 of 2024
In W.P.No.35878 of 2023:-
M/s.Reco Process Pumps,
By its Proprietor,
S.Savitha .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Development Commissioner/
Additional Secretary,
(Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise) MSME
'A' Wing, 7th Floor,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 108.
2. The Joint Director and Head of Office,
MSME Development and Facilitation
Office, Ministry of MSME,
Government of India, MSME Bhawan,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
1/30
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
65/1, G.S.T Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd -
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Ranipet, Tamil Nadu - 632 403.
4. M/s.Sam Turbo Private Limited,
Avinashi Road, Neelambur, Coimbatore - 641 062,
Tamil Nadu, India, Rep. by its Managing Director
(R4-impleaded as per order, dated 25.11.2024
in W.P.No.35878 of 2023) .. Respondents
In W.P.No.38037 of 2024:-
M/s.Reco Process Pumps,
By its Proprietor,
S.Savitha .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Development Commissioner/
Additional Secretary,
(Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise) MSME
'A' Wing, 7th Floor,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 108.
2. The Joint Director and Head of Office,
MSME Development and Facilitation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
2/30
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
Office, Ministry of MSME,
Government of India, MSME Bhawan,
65/1, G.S.T Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd -
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Ranipet, Tamil Nadu - 632 403.
4. M/s.Sam Turbo Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Avinashi Road, Neelambur,
Coimbatore - 641 062,
Tamil Nadu, India.
5. The Central Vigilance Commissioner,
The Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhavan, Block-A,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi - 110 023. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.35878 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd
respondent to consider the petitioner's offer, dated 17.10.2023 to match up
with Non-MSE L1 price, as per the Public Procurement Policy for Micro
and Small Enterprises, 2012, Procurement Norms under Public Procurement
Policy for MSEs (PPP-Mses:2012) mentioned in the 3rd respondent website
and Special provisions for Micro and Small Enterprises in Annexure - M
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
3/30
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
mentioned in the 3rd respondent website in respect of Tender No.3820383E
for the supply of Slurry Pumps for Kahalgaon project and award the same in
favour of the petitioner.
Prayer in W.P.No.38037 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
call for the records leading to the impugned communications of the 3rd
respondent, dated 18.11.2024 and 27.11.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan,
(in both W.Ps) Senior Counsel,
for Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar
For Respondents : Mrs.V.Sudha,
(in both W.Ps) Central Government Standing
Counsel, for RR-1 and 2
: Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.John Zachariah, for R3
: Mr.R.Jaya Prakash, for R4
COMMON ORDER
These two Writ Petitions are connected and as such, are disposed of
by this common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
2. The petitioner, M/s.Reco Process Pumps (RECO), represented by
its proprietor, S.Savitha, filed W.P.No.35878 of 2023, seeking a direction to
the third respondent, M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipet
(BHEL), to consider the it’s offer dated 17.10.2023 to match the Non-MSE
L1 price as per the Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small
Enterprises, 2012. This includes the Procurement Norms under Public
Procurement Policy for MSEs (PPP-MSEs: 2012) as detailed on the third
respondent's website, as well as the special provisions for Micro and Small
Enterprises in Annexure-M mentioned on the same website, concerning
Tender No.3820383E for the supply of slurry pumps for the Kahalgaon
project and to award the contract in favour of the petitioner.
3. Originally, by the order dated 24.04.2024, the Writ Petition was
allowed with certain directions. However, M/s.Sam Turbo Private Limited
filed W.A.No.2316 of 2024, claiming to have been declared as L1 under the
said tender and stating that the order was not passed in its presence. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
contention was accepted by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which
set aside the order dated 24.04.2024 and directed that the Writ Petitions be
disposed of afresh after giving an opportunity to the said Company.
Accordingly, M/s.Sam Turbo Private Limited (SAMTURBO) is impleaded as
the fourth respondent in W.P.No.35873 of 2023 and the matter is taken up
for disposal.
4. RECO also filed W.P.No.38037 of 2024 challenging the
communications dated 18.11.2024 and 27.11.2024, with a prayer to quash
them and for other orders. By the communication dated 18.11.2024, RECO
was requested to provide acceptance of the price offered by L1. By the
further communication dated 27.11.2024, it was informed that since they did
not accept to match the price, the third respondent would proceed with the
tender.
5. The factual background of these Writ Petitions is that BHEL floated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
a tender on 22.06.2022 for the procurement of slurry pumps for its projects
at Kahalgaon, referenced as No.3820383E, and for its project at Sipat,
referenced as No.38208786E. The due date for bid submission was
21.07.2022, when the bids were to be opened. RECO submitted its tender
for both projects as a small unit according to MSE guidelines. Concerning
the Sipat project, RECO filed W.P.No.35878 of 2023 to express its
willingness to match the price of the L1 in terms of the Public Procurement
Policy under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006. Subsequently, RECO was allowed to match the price of L1 and was
awarded the Sipat project.
6. The present Writ Petitions pertain to the Kahalgaon project.
Regarding Kahalgaon, SAMTURBO was declared as L1, having quoted
Rs.6,36,98,255/-. RECO is L2, having quoted Rs.6,40,88,255/-. Therefore,
RECO approached this Court through W.P.No.35878 of 2023 to seek
permission to match the L1 price, as her quoted price is within 15% of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
price band according to the Public Procurement Policy.
7. BHEL conducted post-tender negotiations, during which L1,
SAMTURBO agreed to reduce the price from Rs.6,38,98,255/- to
Rs.4,72,94,245.33 ps. By the communication dated 18.11.2024, RECO was
directed to match the stated price. By the communication dated 27.11.2024,
it was noted that since RECO did not accept the request to match the price,
BHEL would proceed further according to the terms and conditions.
Aggrieved by this, W.P.No.38037 of 2024 has been filed.
8. Heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the RECO;
Mrs.V.Sudha, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2; Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel and
Mr.John Zachariah for BHEL; and Mr.R.Jaya Prakash, learned Counsel for
SAMTURBO.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
9. Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for RECO, by taking this
Court through the relevant provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Act, 2006, including Sections 9 and 11, submits
that the first respondent is entitled to implement measures in furtherance of
the objectives of the Act. In exercising such powers, the procurement policy
for Micro and Small Enterprises, 2012, was notified on 26.03.2012. The
policy came into effect on 01.04.2012. Furthermore, on 09.11.2018, the first
respondent also notified the Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small
Enterprises (MSEs) Amendment Order, 2018, which reserved 3% of the
quota earmarked for MSEs, specifically for those owned by women.
10. The learned Senior Counsel, drawing the attention of this Court to
clause No.8 of the norms for purchase preference, submits that in cases
where the tender quantity cannot be divided and the MSE is not L1 but falls
within L1+15%, the full order should be placed with the MSE, subject to
MSE matching the L1 price. The petitioner is also a woman entrepreneur;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
therefore, there is no dispute that BHEL is mandated to allow the petitioner
to match the L1 price. L1 originally quoted Rs.6,36,98,255/-, and the
petitioner was fully prepared to match this price. BHEL engaged in post-
tender negotiations merely because the petitioner filed the earlier Writ
Petition and to show favoritism to the fourth respondent.
11. The circular from the Central Vigilance Commission, dated
03.03.2007, clearly prohibits public sector organisations from engaging in
post-tender negotiations. It states that only under exceptional circumstances
can post-tender negotiations occur, and in this case, no extraordinary
circumstances exist. This post-tender negotiation was conducted solely to
eliminate the petitioner, a small enterprise, from competition. The price has
been drastically reduced, leaving no margin for profit. The fourth
respondent, a larger enterprise, can afford to supply slurry pumps for this
single tender even at a loss, as this would eliminate competition and keep
small enterprises, such as the petitioner, out of the supply.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
12. When the estimated price for reverse bidding by BHEL was
Rs.7,85,18,355/-, the fact that it has been reduced to an unrealistic amount of
Rs.4,72,94,245.33 would suggest that this is offered solely to eliminate the
petitioner from the competition. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the
additional affidavit to argue that the price is entirely unrealistic. To support
his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel cites the following judgments:-
S.No. Parties Citation
1 Altaf Khan Vs. Mohd. Amin Khan and 1995 Supp (4) SCC
2 Tavvala Veeraswami Vs. Pulim 1934 SCC OnLine
Ramanna and 3 Ors. Mad 366
3 Amal Mal Sindhi Vs. Ram Parkash 1978 SCC OnLine
Del 189
4 B.Gurubackiam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 (1) CTC 1
and Ors.
5 Shri Siddhivinayak Enterprises, Mumbai 2019 (6) Mh.L.J 491
Vs. Union of India and Ors.
6 Central Institute of Plastics Engineering 2015 SCC OnLine
& Technology (CIPET) Vs. Indian Oil P&H 4276
Corporation Limited and Ors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
13. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for BHEL, submits that
the tender document categorically mentions a three-tier process. Firstly, if
the parties qualify based on the technical bid, the price bid will be opened.
Thereafter, it contemplates reverse bidding. Following this, negotiations can
be held with L1. The original circular of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner
is further clarified by a communication dated 20.01.2010. Because of this, it
was well within BHEL's rights to negotiate with L1. According to the
procurement policy, the petitioner was allowed, by a letter dated 18.11.2024,
to match L1's offer. When the reduction in price benefits BHEL, the Court
need not intervene. There is no interference or illegality in the entire
transaction.
14. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the parties can supply
slurry pumps at the price noted. Only after ensuring that the offer is realistic
is RECO was directed to match the price of the L1. The learned Senior
Counsel will rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. , to
contend that the tender floating authority’s say in the matter has to be given
preference and the Courts will be slow to interfere. To contend that the
Central Vigilance Commission guidelines are merely recommendatory and
not binding, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Vikas Transport Company Vs. UT of J&K
and Ors. .
15. Mr.R.Jaya Prakash, learned counsel for the fourth respondent,
would submit that the advantage for the fourth respondent is that it possesses
a foundry. Therefore, when negotiations proceeded further, it made a
conscious and commercial decision to reduce its profit and offered a lower
price. Although these decisions were difficult, the fourth respondent needed
to remain competitive; with its foundry and other facilities, it can sustain its
operations. It chose to reduce its profit while making the offer, and the price
1 (2012) 8 SCC 216
2 MANU/JK/1497/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
cannot be considered unrealistic or impossible.
16. I have considered the competing submissions and examined the
material records.
17. Regarding the prayer in the first Writ Petition, it seeks only to
allow the petitioner to match the price of L1. This request is now permitted
by the communications challenged in the second Writ Petition in
W.P.No.38307 of 2024, dated 18.11.2024 and 27.11.2024.
18. The parties do not contest the policy or the fact that RECO
qualifies as a small enterprise and thus, is an MSE. The first respondent has
established a policy that prioritizes Micro and Small Enterprises, mandating
that all public sector enterprises allocate 25% of their total procurement to
Micro and Small Enterprises. Of this allocation, at least 3% should be
sourced from Micro and Small Enterprises owned by women. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
procurement norms, as outlined by BHEL on its website, specify that
wherever orders can be divided, 25% should be allocated to MSEs, and in
cases where orders cannot be divided, the entire order should be given to
MSEs. Clause - 8 of the norms is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
"8. f) In case the tendered quantity cannot be split, MSE
shall be allowed to supply total tendered quantity provided
their quoted price is within a price band of L1 + 15 percent
and they match the L1 price.
8. i) For more clarity in this regard, following table
is furnished;
Type of Price quoted by MSE Finalization of
Tender tender
Can be L1 Full Order on
split MSE
Can be Not L1 but within L1+15% 25% or more
split order on MSE
subject to
matching L1
price.
Cannot be L1 Full Order on
split MSE
Cannot Not L1 but within L1+15% Full Order on
be split MSE subject to
matching L1
price.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the order
cannot be split.
19. Originally, when the reverse bidding occurred and the bids were
finalised, the price offered by SAMTURBO was Rs.6,36,98,255/-. The
price offered by RECO was Rs.6,40,88,255/-. It is not disputed that the
original offer was within L1+15%, and thus, the full order must go to the
MSE. In this regard, BHEL further negotiated with L1, reducing the price to
Rs.4,72,94,245.33 ps, and is now requesting the MSE to match this price.
20. The petitioner’s first contention is that negotiations cannot
proceed due to the Central Vigilance Commission's circular dated
03.03.2007. The relevant clause of Circular No. 4/3/07 reads as follows:-
"(i) As post tender negotiations could often be a source of
corruption, it is directed that there should be no post-
tender negotiations with L-1, except in certain exceptional
situations. Such exceptional situations would include,
procurement of proprietary items, items with limited
sources of supply and items where there is suspicion of a
cartel formation. The justification and details of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
negotiations should be duly recorded and documented
without any loss of time."
21. As a matter of fact, clause No.3 of the same circular reads as
follows:-
"(iii) Negotiations should not be allowed to be misused as
a tool for bargaining with L-1 with dubious intentions or
lead to delays in decision-making. Convincing reasons
must be recorded by the authority recommending
negotiations. Competent authority should exercise due
diligence while accepting a tender or ordering negotiations
or calling for a re-tender and a definite timeframe should
be indicated so that the time taken for according requisite
approvals for the entire process of award of tenders does
not exceed one month from the date of submission of
recommendations. In cases where the proposal is to be
approved at higher levels, a maximum of 15 days should
be assigned for clearance at each level. In no case should
the overall timeframe exceed the validity period of the
tender and it should be ensured that tenders are invariably
finalised within their validity period."
22. Certain organisations interpreted this circular as if negotiation
with L1 alone is prohibited, prompting them to begin negotiations with L2
and L3. Consequently, a clarification was issued via Circular No.01/01/10,
dated 20.01.2010. The entire circular reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
"In the said circular it has, among other things, been stated
"As post tender negotiations could often be a source of
corruption, it is directed that there should be no post tender
negotiations with L1, except in certain exceptional
situation". It has come to Commission’s notice that this
has been interpreted to mean that there is a ban on post
tender negotiations with L-1 only and there could be post
tender negotiations with other than L1 i.e. L2, L3 etc.
This is not correct.
It is clarified to all concerned that - there should normally
be no post tender negotiations. If at all negotiations are
warranted under exceptional circumstances, then it can be
with L1 (Lowest tenderer) only if the tender pertains to the
award of work/supply orders etc. where the Government
or the Government company has to make payment.
However, if the tender is for sale of materials by the
Government or the Govt. company, the post tender
negotiations are not to be held except with H1 (i.e. Highest
tenderer) if required.
2. All other instructions as contained in the circular of
3.3.2007 remain unchagned.
3. These instructions issue with the approval of the
Commission and may please be noted for immediate
compliance."
23. In this context, the tender documents under clause-k state that
BHEL expressly reserved the right to negotiate the price and other
commercial terms and conditions with the L1. The said clause is extracted
hereunder:-
"BHEL reserves the right to conduct negotiations on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
"Price" and "Other Commercial Terms and Conditions"
with the lowest ranked offer at any time after the bid
opening but before the release of the Purchase Order and if
so required by BHEL, Supplier may have to share their
costing sheet with BHEL."
24. The circular was issued with the intention that there should not be
any corruption by calling for negotiation. Negotiations with L2 and L3 are
prohibited based on the principle that if further negotiations occur, the
parties will not provide their best possible quotes during the tender process.
However, given the recent trend and the complex nature of the tendering
process, if the authorities decide to conduct reverse bidding through tender
conditions, it is considered valid. A useful reference in this regard can be
made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court (of which I am a party)
in Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd
(TANGEDCO), represented by its Managing Director and Ors. Vs.
EFICAA Ensmart Solutions Private Limited, represented by its Whole
Time Director . Accordingly, reverse bidding also occurred in this case.
3 2024:MHC:6006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
25. Similarly, the tender conditions are publicly announced, indicating
that negotiations will occur with the L1 and that the L1 must also submit
their cost working sheet to BHEL. Therefore, this is not a situation where
clandestine negotiations were held with the L1. The circular also states that
under exceptional circumstances and with recorded reasons, the authorities
can conduct post-tender negotiations. This is applicable concerning supplies
to the organisations. I hold that clause No.1 in the circular cannot be
interpreted as prohibiting negotiations with the L1 when such negotiations
are explicitly mentioned in the tender document itself. When such, express
clause is made, the same would be an exceptional circumstance, permitting
negotiation.
26. Peculiarly in the instant case, after negotiation, the price has to be
offered to MSE, and thereafter, only L1 has to be finalised, and therefore, it
cannot be categorised as post-tender negotiation; instead, it is a negotiation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
occurring during the process of finalising the bid. Therefore, I cannot accept
the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for RECO that the entire action
of negotiating with SAMTURBO violates the directives of the Central
Vigilance Commission.
27. The other contention is whether the parties acted fairly or with the
sole object of eliminating RECO, a small enterprise. In this regard, when
the arguments were presented, this Court directed the petitioner to file an
additional affidavit. Consequently, an additional affidavit has been filed. In
the additional affidavit, it is not clearly stated that the price offered by the
fourth respondent is impossible or unrealistic.
28. On the contrary, paragraph No.7 points out that even against the
offer of Rs.4,72,94,244.33, the purchase value further decreases to
Rs.3,90,87,740. The respondents explain that while the price remains
unchanged, it will inevitably decrease based on the number of products and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
spare parts supplied while executing such contracts. Even if the contract had
been awarded to RECO, it is stated that marginal variations would still
occur. Now, in the additional affidavit, the petitioner contends that the
pumps are low in efficiency. This claim is denied by BHEL and
SAMTURBO. Therefore, the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner does
not assert that the quoted price is impossible.
29. On the contrary, the reply affidavit filed by the fourth respondent
to the additional affidavit categorically states that they have reduced only
their profit margin and that the price they quoted is certainly possible.
30. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for BHEL, submits that
after reviewing the cost working sheet, BHEL believes that the products can
indeed be supplied at the rates quoted by SAMTURBO. Consequently, this
Court cannot conclude that the price reduction was unrealistic or intended
solely to disadvantage the petitioner. Thus, I reject the contention on behalf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
of RECO that the price quoted in post tender negotiation is solely with an
aim of preventing RECO.
31. The following facts are to be noted in the instant case :
(i) In this case, BHEL knows the number of slurry pumps and other
items for which they invite bids.
(ii) Slurry pumps are available on the market, and the BHEL
authorities should also know well how much margin is usually kept for
profit, how much the manufacturing price will be, and, when they are
supplied in bulk, roughly to what extent the parties can supply. With that
knowledge, they are supposed to have fixed the base price. The base price
fixed for the reverse bidding was Rs.7,85,18,255/-.
(iii) RECO, a small enterprise, initially quoted a sum of
Rs.10,05,26,871.52 ps. (with power loading). SAMTURBO quoted an even
higher amount of Rs.11,50,28,455.30 (with power loading). In reverse
bidding, BHEL set the starting price at Rs.7,85,18,255/-. In this round of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
bidding, RECO reduced their bid to Rs.6,40,88,255/-, while SAMTURBO
lowered theirs to Rs.6,36,98,255/-. Therefore, there is a significant
reduction in price even during the reverse bidding;
(iv) Subsequently, from the price quoted in the reverse bidding of
Rs.6,36,98,255/-, through negotiations, SAM TURBO once again reduced it
to Rs.4,72,94,245.33. This reduction is also quite alarming. BHEL should
be aware of their actions.
32. In this case, when the purchase order is ultimately placed only for
Rs.3,90,87,740/-, there is no logic in BHEL fixing the base price for at
reverse bidding at more than Rs.7,85,18,255/- (almost double the actual
price agreed for). There appears to be a complete non-application of mind
or a mischief that is going on. Therefore, BHEL and its Board have to issue
detailed guidelines to the officers who are floating tenders as to how they
should arrive at the estimate. The fifth respondent, the Central Vigilance
Commission, shall conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine whether there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
is any foul play concerning the fixing of the base prices during the tender
process and during the reverse auction. They can consider the value of other
tenders in BHEL also and take appropriate action if any willful
overestimation/malpractice is involved. Yet another disturbing feature in
the instant case is when the Government of India's norms clearly state that it
is mandatory to grant the contract to MSE bidders if they fall within 15% of
L1, in the tender that has been floated, it is stated in clause D(I) as follows:-
"Cl.No.D(I):................... In case after the bid opening it is
seen that no MSE has become L1, then depending on the
nature of the item, if it is not possible to split the tendered
items/quantities on account of reasons like customer
contract requirements of supplying one make for a given
project or technical reasons like the tendered item being a
system etc. then BHEL would not counter offer the L1
prices even though there may be MSE bidders within the
+15% band of L1."
However, after floating the tender with a clause stating that they
would not negotiate with L1, BHEL authorities took the position that they
would allow the petitioner to match the price of L1. All is not well with
BHEL authorities throughout the process.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
33. Thus, in this case, this Court observes that the conduct of all the
parties BHEL, RECO or SAMTURBO are far from fairness. The facts pump
more slurry on their faces. In such situations, the Court’s decision would be
the one that is less injurious to public interest. Useful reference in this
regard can be made to paragraph Nos.67 and 68 of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Loop Telecom & Trading Limited -Vs-
Union of India . A realistic and actual price offer has now come on record
and the goods are to be supplied to BHEL in a reasonable and realistic price.
Therefore, this Court permits proceeding with the contract process in the
public interest.
34. In the result, these Writ Petitions are disposed of on the following
terms:-
(i) W.P.No.35878 of 2023 is dismissed as infructuous, as the
respondents have issued a communication requesting the petitioner to match
the price of L1.
4 (2022) 6 SCC 762
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
(ii) W.P.No.38037 of 2024 is disposed of on the following terms:-
(a) The impugned communications, dated 18.11.2024 and 27.11.2024,
are upheld. Since the petitioner - RECO is unwilling to match the negotiated
price of L1-the fourth respondent - SAMTURBO, the third respondent -
BHEL, is entitled to proceed further regarding the tender. It is also stated
that the purchase order has been placed with the fourth respondent -
SAMTURBO;
(b) The board of the third respondent - BHEL shall frame detailed
norms regarding the manner in which the base/estimate price and the
negotiated price will be determined for procurements made by BHEL;
(c) The fifth respondent shall conduct a preliminary inquiry regarding
the process of setting the price, referencing the current tender as well as
similar tenders from the third respondent, to determine if there is any
malpractice or willful overestimation and further action shall be pursued
depending on the outcome;
(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.03.2025
Neutral Citation : yes
grs
To
1. The Development Commissioner/
Additional Secretary,
(Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise) MSME
'A' Wing, 7th Floor,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 108.
2. The Joint Director and Head of Office,
MSME Development and Facilitation
Office, Ministry of MSME,
Government of India, MSME Bhawan,
65/1, G.S.T Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. The Central Vigilance Commissioner,
The Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhavan, Block-A,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi - 110 023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.35874 of 2023 and 41132 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.35878 of 2023 and 38037 of 2024
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 06:54:02 pm )
