[Challenge Against Central Vista Project] Live-Updates From Supreme Court

Bhandari: There are three design changes. After the NIT was published, there were changes and the project cost was increased.

Bench: Fee percentage is fixed. How does design change affect the fee then ?

Bhandari submits that this was a submission to rejoin the Respondent’s justification.

Bench states that they will take note of this. 

Bench notes whether this was enough to doubt the entire NIT process. “You can argue that there was no financial planning, no firm in-principle decision at hand, but NIT cannot be struck down because of this argument.”

Bhandari: This was a private negotiation.

Bench: Maybe the Department thought that it was necessary to have a private negotiation. He was already declared as the successful bidder.

Bhandari: Not publicly.

Bhandari: On the same date, a letter is issued from CPWD to Respondent No. 9 informing them that they have emerged as the successful bidder and requesting them to appear for a negotiation on the capping of the fee.

Bhandari, coming to the Respondent’s reply on capping of consultant’s fee: After the financial and technical bids were submitted and evaluated, an Office Memorandum was issued to cap the fee.

Bhandari: It is violative of Rule 182 of General Financial Rules of 2017. The rule pertains to estimation of reasonable expenditure concerning appointment of consultant.

Bhandari: This is not to raise an argument against any of the tenders. This goes against transparency as I am entitled to know the upper cost of the government. This is in line with Mr. Divan’s argument on democratic participation.

Bench: Yours is a PIL. We have no complaint from any of the bidders that this formula has worked to anyone’s disadvantage. What is the problem ? You are a PIL person, please address it from that point of view.

Bhandari submits that the cost of the tendered document is dependent on the consultant. Now, each consultant has the discretion to decide the cost of the project and this provides varied costs. Further, the government has failed to provide an upper limit.