Finolex J Power Systems Ltd v. Delhi Transco Limited

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7121/2025 & CM APPL. 32156/2025 FINOLEX J POWER SYSTEMS LTD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Harsh Ahuja, Mr.Anshul Chowdhary, Mr.Abhishek Arora, Mr.Nakul Dahiya and Mr.Ajay Choudhary, Advs.

versus DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED .....Respondent Through:

Ms.Anubha Dhulia, Adv.

with Mr.Vinayak Menon, Adv. along with Mr.Arshad Ali, Manager (Legal), DTL, Mr.Avadhesh Dwivedi, AM (Legal), DTL, Mr.Vivek Kumar Sharma, Manager (T) and Mr.Shivraj Prajapat, DM (T).

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 23.05.2025 CM APPL. 32157/2025 (for exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7121/2025 & CM APPL. 32156/2025 (for stay) 3.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

It has been stated by learned senior counsel representing the petitioner that in respect of the grievances relating to decision of the tendering authority declaring its bid to be non-responsive technically, a representation was made to the Managing Director of the respondent. He has also stated that except for indicating on the portal that the bid has not been found to be responsive technically, no reasons have been assigned. 5.

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent has stated, on instructions, that even the representation made by the petitioner was considered by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, which has been rejected, though the said decision has not been communicated to the petitioner. She has, however, stated that the petitioner is aware of that decision.

6.

Be that as it may, since the reasons for arriving at the decision by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director rejecting the representation were never supplied to the petitioner, we inquired from learned counsel for the respondent as to whether said reasons can be supplied to the petitioner/ 7.

Ms. Anubha Dhulia, learned counsel representing the respondent has, on instructions, stated that the reasons for decision of Chairman-cumManaging Director rejecting the representation made by the petitioner shall be supplied to him before any final Letter of Award is issued. 8.

Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition along with the pending application in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent.

9.

We make it clear that we have not adjudicated any issue raised in the writ petition on merits. We further provide that in case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the reasons to be supplied under this order, it will have an The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

opportunity to challenge the same by way of taking appropriate legal proceedings/remedies which may be permissible under law. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MAY 23, 2025 "shailndra"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.