Techno Electric and Engineering Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors on 19 August 2026

ORDER

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The instant appeal, in which the above mentioned two applications have been filed which are being disposed of by this order, pertains to the establishment of the 400/220 kV GIS Ambernath (District Thane) intra-state transmission project (hereinafter referred to as “Ambernath Project”) envisaged in the Empowered Committee meeting dated 8th July, 2025 and approved by the Government of Maharashtra vide order dated 3rd October, 2025 to mitigate the demand growth in Thane region of the State for the benefit of large pool of general consumers.

2. The Appellant has, in this appeal, assailed the order dated 1st June, 2026 passed by the 1st Respondent – Maharashtra Electricity

Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in case No. 88 of 2026 whereby the Commission has allowed the development of Ambernath sub-station project under the Distribution Framework - Dedicated Distribution Facility (DDF) by Respondent No. 4 and has permitted the recovery of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) charges by 3rd Respondent – Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Limited (MSETL).

3. We may note that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 1st June, 2026, the Commission vide order dated 26th May, 2026 had granted approval to the exclusion of Ambernath sub-station project from Tariff Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB) framework.

4. The facts in brief which have led the Appellant to file the instant appeal and which are relevant for the disposal of the captioned applications are :- i. Government of Maharashtra, vide order dated 4th January, constituted an Empowered Committee for the construction and development of intra-state transmission project in the State of Maharashtra. In the meeting held on 8th July, 2025, the Committee discussed the appointment of Bid Process Coordinator for conducting bidding process for

identifying and selecting entities for implementation of such transmission projects. ii. Vide subsequent order dated 3rd October, 2025, the Government of Maharashtra inter alia appointed REC Power Development and Consultancy Limited (in short REC-PDCL) to act as bid process coordinator in relation to the Ambernath Project. Accordingly, REC-PDCL issued a single stage Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 8th December, 2025 for the purpose of selection of bidder as transmission service provider through competitive bidding process to develop the intra-state transmission project for establishment of 400-220 kV GIS Ambernath Project. iii. Bids were invited by REC-PDCL from prospective stake holders for undertaking the construction and development of Ambernath project. Both Appellant and Respondent No. 4 participated in the bidding process in terms of the RFP dated 8th December, 2025. In all, six bidders had participated and qualified for the opening of initial price offers after technical evaluation. Subsequently, four bidders qualified for participation in the e-Reverse Auction conducted on MSETC

portal during the period from 2nd April, 2026 to 10th April, 2026 with a ceiling price of Rs.1250 million. During the e-Reverse Auction process, the discovered tariff was approximately Rs.0.20 million which was found to be abnormally low, unrealistic and commercially unviable in comparison to the base price and prevailing market condition. iv. Accordingly, in view of Clause7.5 of the TBCB Guidelines dated 10th August, 2021 issued by Ministry of Power, Government of India which empowered the bid evaluation committee to reject bids not aligning with the prevailing market prices, the bid process for the project was annulled by the bid process coordinator in its meeting dated 23rd April, 2026. This was communicated to the Appellant on 29th April, 2026. v. It appears that in the meanwhile, Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 6th April, 2026 addressed to 2nd Respondent, offered to develop the Ambernath project free of cost and reiterated the said proposal vide subsequent letter dated 8th May, 2026. vi. The Empowered Committee, in its 10th Meeting held on 12th May, 2026 considered the failure of TBCB process and taking into consideration the strategic importance of the project as well

as the proposal of Respondent No. 4 to bear entire capital expenditure and O&M expenses without any tariff implication on the consumers, recommended implementation of the project under the DDF framework subject to the approval of the Commission. vii. On the basis of said recommendations of the Empowered Committee, the MSTU vide letter dated 22nd May, 2026 sought Commission’s approval for the implementation of the project under the DDF framework. As noted hereinabove, the Commission vide letter dated 25th May, 2026, granted approval for exclusion of the project from TBCB. viii. Accordingly, MSTU approched the Commission by way of case No. 88 of 2026 seeking approval of the development of the proposed 400-220 kV GIS Ambernath sub-station under the DDF framework and for recovery of O&M expenses from Respondent No. 4. The petition was disposed of by the Commission vide the impugned order dated 1st June, 2026.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Commission, the Appellant, which was one of the bidders who had submitted bids for the project in pursuance to the RFP dated 8th December, 2025 and

had qualified for participation in the e-Reverse Auction, has approached this Tribunal by way of the instant appeal.

6. We may note that when the appeal had come up for hearing before this Tribunal for the first time on 25th June, 2026, the Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Sen appeared for the Appellant and pressed for ad interim relief as sought in IA No. 1385 of 2026. Accordingly, we heard the Learned Senior Counsel and upon considering his submissions, by an ad interim order, we directed that the impugned order of the Commission shall remain in abeyance and shall not be acted upon.

7. Upon receipt of notice of the appeal, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have filed their replies to IA No. 1385 of 2026. A separate application bearing IA No. 1664 of 2026 has also been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 seeking vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 25th June, 2026.

8. We have heard Mr. Tabrej Malawat, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel for the Commission - 1st Respondent, Mr. B.P. Patil, Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Respondent and Mr. C.S. Vaidhyanathan and Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Learned Senior Counsels for 4th Respondent.

9. We have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.

10. The case of the Appellant is that it had emerged as L-1 bidder in the competitive bidding process and, therefore, neither the TBCB exclusion order dated 26th May, 2026 nor the impugned order ought to have been passed in the absence of the Appellant and without hearing it. It was further argued by the Appellant’s counsel that MSTCU had no power to convert the intra-state transmission project into DDF and the same is in violation of power conferred upon it vide Government order dated 4th January, 2019. Learned Counsel further sought to argue that the Commission too had no legal power to convert the Ambernath Project from Section 63 of TBCB route to DDF. It is argued that the Ambernath project is not eligible to be implemented under DDF framework as it is not a distribution project but an EHV intra-state transmission project. Thus, it is argued that once the Appellant emerged as the lowest bidder and was declared successful bidder on 10th April, 2026, the entire bidding process could not have been annulled on 29th April, 2026 paving way for illegally converting the transmission system into DDF project at the instance of Respondent No. 4. Learned Counsel urged that the ad interim

order dated 25th June, 2026 may be made absolute till the disposal of the appeal.

11. On behalf of the Respondents, it is vehemently argued that the Appellant has misled this Tribunal by stating that the Appellant was declared the successful bidder on 10th April, 2026. It is submitted that the ex-parte ad interim order dated 25th June, 2026 has been obtained by the Appellant on the basis of such false mis- representation. It is pointed out that the bid process coordinator had, at no point of time declared Appellant or any other bidder as L-1 or the successful bidder and accordingly no Letter of Award (LoA) was issued to the Appellant during or after the e-Reverse Auction process. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondents would argue that in terms of the powers under Recital 11 read with clause 2.5.6 (o) and 2.17 of the RPF, bid process coordinator was empowered to annul bidding process prior to declaration of any successful bidder without assigning any reason and without any liability. It is argued that in the absence of any formal declaration of Appellant as the successful bidder and in the absence of any LoA/LoI issued in its name, no vested right whatsoever accrued in favour of the Appellant and, therefore, the entire challenge of the Appellant to the impugned order

of the Commission must fail. It is further pointed out that Regulation 15 read with Annexure IV of MERC MYT Regulations, 2004 permit the implementation of intra-state transmission system above the threshold limit of Rs.200 crores through cost plus mechanism under Section 62 of the Electricity Act with prior approval of the Commission. According to the Learned Senior Counsels, the Appellant in the instant appeal is actually but indirectly challenging the validity and legality of annulment of TBCB process and such challenge is not maintainable before this Tribunal. On these submissions, it is urged that the ad interim order dated 25th June, 2026 may be vacated forthwith.

12. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the Learned Senior Counsels and perused the record.

13. At the very outset, we are constrained to note that the Appellant appears to have obtained the ex-parte ad interim order dated 25th June, 2026 in this appeal by mis-representation of facts. Manifestly, it was a malafide attempt on the part of the Appellant to mislead this Tribunal by presenting false facts in order to extract the ad interim order from this Tribunal.

14. On 25th June, 2026, while advancing submissions on the interim application, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant had emerged as the lowest bidder in the bidding process and was declared a successful bidder on 10th April, 2026. To substantiate these contentions, Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the hearing on 5th August, 2026 produced a print-out of the computer screen of the web portal on which the bidding process was going on, which bears the date of 10th April, 2026 and mentions L-1 below the name of the Appellant. It is on this basis that the Appellant claims to have been declared successful L-1 bidder on the said date i.e. 10th April, 2026. However, it is to be noted that this was only a system generated bid flow message which is displayed solely for the purpose of indicating the current bidding position/status of a bidder during the on-going action process on a particular date. Such message is provisional and dynamic in nature and is subject to change on the basis of subsequent bids and system validations. All the bidders in e-Reverse Auction process can see “my status” link during the course of bidding process to check their respective status as to whether they are the L-1 bidder at a given point of time on a particular date. We note at the cost of repetition that the position

changes dynamically as the bidding progresses. It appears that the Appellant herein has taken a screen shot of the said link, which is exclusively for private viewing of a particular bidder and is not concurrently visible to all the bidders.

15. The fact remains that concededly the bidding process had not concluded as no communication was addressed by the bid process coordinator to the Appellant intimating it that it has emerged as successful L-1 bidder. After conclusion of each bid event, a bid sheet is generated and made available for public view which is considered confirmatory and authoritative with respect to bid ranking and the outcome of the bid. As regards the bidding process in question, no such confirmatory and authoritative bid sheet was issued by the bid process coordinator.

16. Therefore, it is evident that in the absence of any such confirmation from the bid process coordinator, the Appellant falsely claimed itself to have emerged as a successful L-1 bidder in the bidding process and succeeded in obtaining an ex-parte ad interim order from this Tribunal on 25th June, 2026 on the basis of such deliberate false representation.

17. As contended on behalf of the Respondents, since the last bid received on 10th April, 2025 was for the sum of Rs.0.20 million which was abnormally low as compared to base price and also was commercially unviable, the BPC rightly realized that the subsequent bids would be lower than it and therefore, there was no point in continuing the bidding. Accordingly, the empowered Committee in its 10th meeting held on 12th May, 2026 decided to annul the entire bidding process.

18. The Appellant does not dispute that neither was any communication sent to it by BPC stating that the bidding has come to an end in which appellant has emerged successful L-1 bidder nor was any LoA/LoI issued to him. Mere fact that the portal, on which bidding was going on, showed appellant as L-1 on a particular day i.e. 10.04.2026 when the bidding was in progress without being formally concluded nowhere indicates that the Appellant was a successful L-1 bidder. The bidding event was annulled prior to its conclusion and before issuance of any confirmatory bid sheet as the lowest bid submitted was found too low and unviable. Thus no right, more so a vested right, had got vested in favour of the Appellant.

19. All these facts have been mischievously concealed by the Appellant in the Appeal as well as in the application for interim relief. It is a settled principle that a person seeking equitable relief of interim stay must approach the court with clean hands. However, the Appellant herein has founded its appeal on false and distorted facts in an endeavour to mislead this Tribunal. Thus, Appellant is not entitled to such equitable relief of interim stay as sought in the IA No. 1385/2026 and the ad-interim order dated 25th June, 2026 is liable to be vacated on this very score.

20. The contention on behalf of the Appellant that the entire bidding process could not have been annulled as the bid process coordinator was not empowered to do so, also is devoid of any merit. On this aspect, we may refer to the Tariff Based Competitive Bidding guidelines for transmission service dated 10th August, 2021, Clause 7.5 of which is as under :- “7.5 The bidder with the lowest annual transmission charges discovered after the e-reverse bidding procedure will be considered for the award. The Evaluation Committee shall have the right to reject all price bids if the rates quoted are not aligned to the prevailing prices.”

21. Thus, it is clear that the bids could be rejected if the rates quoted are not aligned with the prevailing prices, which exactly has happened in this case, and therefore, no infirmity can be found in the decision to annul the bidding process.

22. On this aspect, the relevant clauses of the RPF document, which are extracted hereinbelow, are also material and need to be referred to :- “11. The RFP document is not transferable. BPC reserves the right to reject all Bid and/or annual the process of tariff based competitive bidding for selection of Bidder as TSP to execute the Project without assigning any reason. BPC shall not bear any liability, whatsoever, in this regard.”………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………

2.5.6 Bidders may note that :- j) If for any reason the Bid of the Bidder with the lowest Quoted Transmission Charges is not selected or Letter of Intent issued to such Selected Bidder is cancelled or such Bidder withdraws its Bids, the BPC may :- i. Invite all the remaining Bidders to revalidate or extend their respective Bid Security, as necessary, and match the Bid of the Bidder with the lowest Quoted Transmission Charges (the "second round of bidding") with following cases:

• If in the second round of bidding, only one Bidder matches the Bid of the Bidder with lowest Quoted Transmission Charges, it shall be the Selected Bidder.

• If two or more Bidders match the Bid of the Bidder with the lowest Quoted Transmission Charges in the second round of bidding, then the Bidder whose Quoted Transmission Charges was lower as compared to other Bidder(s) in the first round of bidding shall be the Selected Bidder. For example, if the third and fifth lowest Bidders in the first round of bidding offer to match the Bid of the Bidder with lowest Quoted Transmission Charges in the second round of bidding, the said third lowest Bidder shall be the Successful Bidder.

• In the event that no Bidder offers to match the Bid of the Bidder with the lowest Quoted Transmission Charges in the second round of bidding, the BPC may, in its discretion, invite fresh Bids (the "third round of bidding") from all Bidders except the Bidder which quoted the lowest Quoted Transmission Charges in the first round of bidding. In case the Bidders are invited for the third round of bidding to revalidate or extend their Bid Security, as necessary, and offer fresh Bids, they shall be eligible for submission of fresh Bids provided, however, that in such third round of bidding only such Bids shall be eligible for consideration which are lower than the Quoted Transmission Charges of the second lowest Bidder in the first round of bidding; or; ii. Annul the bid process; or

iii. Take any such measure as may be deemed fit in the sole discretion of the BPC…………………………………… …………………………………………………………………

o) BPC reserves the right to reject all Bids and/or annul the process of tariff based competitive bidding for selection of Bidder as TSP to execute the Project without assigning any reason. BPC shall not bear any liability, whatsoever, in this regard. …………………………………. …………………………………………………………………

“2.17 Right of the BPC to reject any Bid

BPC reserves the right to reject all or any of the Bid/s or cancel the RFP without assigning any reasons whatsoever and without any liability.”

(Emphasis supplied)

23. These clauses of the RfP document clearly indicate that the BPC was within its rights to reject the bids or cancel the bidding process at any stage without furnishing any reason or explanation for the same. In the instant case, the BPC has even furnished the reason for annulment of the bidding process, as already noted herein above.

24. One more aspect of the case which is material and needs to be noted. Vide communication dated 29.04.2026, the Appellant was

informed that the bid process has been annulled and bid bonds in the sum of Rs.4,93,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores, Ninety Three Lakhs only) submitted by Appellant were returned to it as having been discharged. Thus, evidently the Appellant got knowledge upon receipt of this letter that the bidding process has been annulled. Intriguingly, Appellant has not challenged such annulment of bidding process before any Court till date. Hence, he shall be taken to have accepted such annulment and is precluded from challenging the impugned order of the Commission which is subsequent to such annulment.

25. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we conclude that the appeal as well as the application bearing I.A. No. 1385 of 2026 of the Appellant is founded upon false and concocted facts. The Appellant has misled the Tribunal by knowingly presenting a fabricated and fictious version of events in order to obtain a favourable order. In view of the actual chain of events that has taken place which came to light during the course of arguments on these applications, the Appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case in its favour. Balance of convenience too lies heavily in favour of the respondents and against the Appellant. No loss or prejudice would be caused to the Appellant

in case of denial of interim relief as sought by way of IA No. 1385 of 2026 as no vested right has accrued in its favour.

26. Hence, the IA No. 1385 of 2026 is hereby dismissed. The ex- parte interim order passed on 25th June, 2026 stands vacated. Consequently, the IA No. 1664 of 2026 filed by the 4th Respondent stands allowed. Appeal No. 279 of 2026

27. In view of the detailed order passed on the IA Nos. 1385 of 2026 and 1664 of 2026, we feel doubtful about the maintainability of the present appeal.

28. Accordingly, we post the appeal for arguments on the aspect of maintainability on 12th October, 2026.

Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of August, 2026.

(Virender Bhat)

(Seema Gupta)

Judicial Member

Officiating Chairperson

✓ REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE

js