In Tata Motors' appeal against Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) order on May 6, the Bench had wrapped up the hearing on June 7 and had reserved its judgement. [TATA Motors v. The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Anr.]
The Bombay High Court upheld BESTs decision to exclude Tata Motors Ltd. from a tender for the supply of electric buses valued at around Rs 2,450 crore on Tuesday.
"Tata Motors, the petitioner, was correctly excluded. Additionally, it is decided that BEST erred in holding Evey Trans to be technically responsive. Additionally, Evey is kept unresponsive. BEST is permitted to issue a new tender if necessary", stated Division bench of Justices Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Madhav J. Jamdar.
For Mumbai and its suburbs, on a 12-year gross cost contract (GCC) basis, BEST had published a tender notice for the operation of stage carriage services including 1,400 single-decker AC electric buses (with driver). The team at Karanjawala & Company briefed Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of Tata Motors, who claimed that the company's technical bid was arbitrarily rejected to unfairly favour Evey Trans Private Limited, which was awarded the contract. According to the firm, BEST selectively eased regulations and even waived some requirements to assist other bidders, which benefited Evey Trans.
Additionally, Tata Motors claimed that its bid, which was in accordance with the tender criteria, had guaranteed that its buses could go 200 km on an 80 percent charge without any interruptions. In the petition, it was claimed that the BEST had incorrectly deemed Tata Motors' offer to be "technically non-responsive" and that it should be examined.
BEST responded to the argument by claiming that the company lacked locus (standing) to challenge the procedure after their offer was deemed "technically non-responsive." According to the transport authority's response, the company was a bidder in a procurement process and its offer was deemed "technically non-responsive" for allegedly deviating from the terms of the procurement, therefore it lacks the power to contest the procedure.
To submit the models after testing them under simulated conditions using Automotive Industry Standards (AIS) measurements, Tata Motors departed from the conditions, according to BEST. The buses were required to undergo testing under "Actual Operating Conditions" (AOC), which included the volume of passengers being transported, the state of the roads, and the volume of traffic. The authority asserted that there would have been no recourse available to it if it had accepted the AIS-tested models and later encountered problems. BEST defended its choice and asked that Tata Motors' complaint be rejected.
TATA Motors was represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was briefed by Karanjawala & Co. and Lexicon Law Partners. BEST was represented by Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, Advocates Nirav Shah, Anjan Dasgupta, and Advocate Jash Shah, all of whom were briefed by DSK Legal. For Evey Trans Pvt. Ltd., Advocates Somshekhar Sundaresan and Rohan Cama appeared.
TATA Motors had challenged the award of the tender to Evey on the ground that two hours before the technical evaluation, in complete disregard for tender conditions that put a specific embargo on any changes to the technical bid after its opening, BEST allowed Evey Trans to change its bid.
