APTEL vacates stay after finding transmission-project bidder misrepresented e-auction status and concealed bid annulment

The appeal concerned the proposed 400/220 kV GIS Ambernath intra-State transmission project in Maharashtra, initially intended to be developed through Tariff Based Competitive Bidding (“TBCB”). REC Power Development and Consultancy Limited acted as the Bid Process Coordinator (“BPC”) and issued the Request for Proposal dated 8 December 2025.

The Appellant and Respondent No. 4 participated in the bidding process; four bidders qualified for the e-Reverse Auction conducted between 2 and 10 April 2026.

During the auction, a bid of approximately Rs. 0.20 million was recorded, which was considered abnormally low and commercially unviable when compared with the base price and prevailing market conditions. Relying on Clause 7.5 of the TBCB Guidelines, the BPC annulled the bidding process on 23 April 2026 and informed the Appellant on 29 April 2026.

The Appellant claimed that it had become the successful L-1 bidder on 10 April 2026 based on a screen displaying “L-1” on the electronic bidding portal. However, no formal declaration, confirmatory bid sheet, Letter of Intent, or Letter of Award was issued in its favour.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 offered to develop the project without cost to consumers. The Empowered Committee recommended implementation under the Dedicated Distribution Facility (“DDF”) framework, and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) approved the proposal and permitted recovery of O&M expenses from Respondent No. 4 by order dated 1 June 2026.

The Appellant challenged the Commission’s order and sought interim protection. On 25 June 2026, the Tribunal directed that the impugned order remain in abeyance. Respondent No. 4 sought vacation of that ex parte order through IA No. 1664 of 2026.

Whether the Appellant had acquired any enforceable or vested right as the successful L-1 bidder merely because the electronic bidding portal temporarily displayed it as L-1 during the ongoing e-Reverse Auction, in the absence of a formal declaration, confirmatory bid sheet, Letter of Intent, or Letter of Award?

Whether the BPC was legally entitled to annul the TBCB process when the discovered bid was considered abnormally low, commercially unviable, and not aligned with prevailing prices?

Whether the Appellant was entitled to interim relief after allegedly failing to disclose the true status of the bidding process and presenting itself as the successful bidder?

Whether the maintainability of the main appeal required further consideration following the Tribunal’s findings on the interim applications?

The Tribunal applied Clause 7.5 of the Tariff Based Competitive Bidding Guidelines for Transmission Service dated 10 August 2021, under which the Evaluation Committee may reject all price bids where the quoted rates are not aligned with prevailing prices.

It also relied on Clauses 11, 2.5.6(j), 2.5.6(o), and 2.17 of the RFP, which empowered the BPC to reject bids, annul the bidding process, or adopt other appropriate measures, including annulment, without assigning reasons and without liability.

The Tribunal further applied the equitable principle that a party seeking interim relief must approach the court with clean hands and make full and accurate disclosure of material facts.

It held that a provisional, system-generated indication of L-1 status during an ongoing auction does not by itself create a vested or enforceable right, particularly where no formal bid confirmation, LoI, or LoA has been issued.

The Tribunal found that the portal’s display of “L-1” was merely a provisional and dynamic status indicator visible to the concerned bidder during the ongoing auction; it was not a final declaration of a successful bidder.

The authoritative outcome would have been reflected in a confirmatory bid sheet issued after conclusion of the bid event, but no such bid sheet was generated in the present case.

Since the bidding process was annulled before its conclusion and before issuance of any LoA or LoI, the Appellant acquired no vested right in the project.

The Tribunal further held that the BPC’s decision was supported both by Clause 7.5 of the TBCB Guidelines and the express terms of the RFP. The discovered bid was substantially below the base price and was regarded as commercially unviable; therefore, annulment of the process fell within the BPC’s contractual and procedural authority.

The Appellant had also been expressly informed of the annulment on 29 April 2026 and had received return of its bid bonds, but had not separately challenged that annulment. The Tribunal treated this conduct as further weakening the Appellant’s challenge to the subsequent Commission order.

Because the Appellant represented itself as a successful L-1 bidder despite the absence of formal confirmation and allegedly concealed material facts, the Tribunal concluded that it had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and was not entitled to equitable interim protection.

The ex parte interim order dated 25 June 2026 was vacated, and IA No. 1664 of 2026 filed by Respondent No. 4 was allowed.

The Tribunal did not finally decide the merits or maintainability of the main appeal; instead, Appeal No. 279 of 2026 was listed for arguments on maintainability on 12 October 2026.