High Court Scraps CIDCO’s ₹3,477 Cr Infra Contracts
• NAINA Tender Twist: Major Bids Under Scrutiny
• CIDCO’s Contract Process Declared Unfair by Court
Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
The Bombay High Court has annulled CIDCO’s ₹3,477 crore infrastructure contract decisions in Navi Mumbai’s NAINA region, citing irregularities and unfair tender evaluation. The court ordered a re-evaluation of all bids, including the disqualified Thakur-Evereskon JV. Sprouts News SIT revealed procedural lapses and potential bias in CIDCO’s decision-making process.
In a significant blow to the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), the Bombay High Court has nullified its decisions regarding three high-value infrastructure contracts in the Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA). CIDCO had awarded contracts worth ₹1,909 crore to PNC-Akshya JV and approved a ₹1,568 crore bid from Ashoka-Akshya JV. Both awards have now been quashed by the court.
Additionally, CIDCO’s disqualification of a ₹3,477 crore bid submitted by Thakur-Evereskon JV was also overturned. The court, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makrand Karnik, has ordered CIDCO to reassess all bids fairly and transparently, taking into account the technical and financial eligibility of all parties involved.
Legal Battle Over Mega Contracts in Navi Mumbai
CIDCO had floated tenders on July 23, 2024, for two critical infrastructure packages worth ₹1,568.86 crore and ₹1,909 crore respectively. Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. partnered with Evereskon (OJSCEuro Asian Construction Corporation, Azerbaijan) to submit a joint bid, competing against PNC-Akshya JV, Ashoka-Akshya JV, and others.
On September 26, 2024, both PNC-Akshya and Ashoka-Akshya JVs sent letters to CIDCO raising objections against the Thakur-Evereskon bid. In response, Thakur-Evereskon JV submitted a counter letter on September 27, flagging alleged discrepancies in the technical tenders of the rival JVs.
However, CIDCO’s tender committee rejected Thakur-Evereskon’s technical bid on October 8, 2024, citing issues with the integrated agreement, eligibility documents, work experience certificates, and GST registration. The Sprouts News Special Investigation Team (SIT) found that these objections were not weighed with equal scrutiny across all bidders, a claim supported by the petitioners in their High Court plea.
High Court Slams CIDCO’s Bid Evaluation Process
Despite receiving a clear judicial directive in October 2024 to withhold final contract decisions until a court verdict, CIDCO proceeded to issue work orders to PNC-Akshya JV on October 15. This defiance, combined with inconsistent evaluation standards, led the High Court to invalidate the contracts and mandate a re-evaluation of all eligible bids, including Thakur-Evereskon’s.
The petitioners pointed out that while their explanations for the raised objections were ignored, other bidders received preferential treatment. They alleged that CIDCO’s process lacked transparency and fairness—findings independently validated by the Sprouts SIT, which revealed procedural irregularities and potential bias.
Furthermore, it was revealed in court that CIDCO overlooked a pending criminal case filed by Thakur-Evereskon JV against PNC for past irregularities in a similar tender agreement. This crucial omission was criticized by the court as a serious lapse in due diligence and impartial decision-making.
Also Read: Criminal Past of Bhandari Co. Bank Liquidator Rakhi Mangesh Gawade Exposed.
SIT Questions CIDCO’s Integrity in Public Tendering
The Sprouts News Special Investigation Team (SIT) noted that CIDCO’s tender evaluation mechanism favored certain bidders, disregarding procedural norms and violating the principles of equitable treatment. Despite Thakur-Evereskon meeting core eligibility requirements, CIDCO allegedly failed to provide a level playing field or adequate clarification opportunities.
CIDCO’s defense cited that the Thakur-Evereskon bid heavily relied on international work experience, which did not align with the project’s outlined requirements. Hence, the agency argued that the terms could not be relaxed in their favor. However, the court rejected this rationale and called for a fresh review that includes fair consideration of all financial bids.
Sprouts SIT Continues to Uncover Government Contract Mismanagement
The Sprouts SIT has committed to continued oversight of public infrastructure tenders, especially where taxpayer funds and community development are involved. This case exposes serious questions about CIDCO’s procurement integrity and highlights the need for reform in tender evaluation procedures.
Sprouts urges relevant authorities to ensure that public-private contracts are governed by transparency, accountability, and fairness—values essential to safeguarding public trust and investment.
