Full details are available in the attached PDF: Download Now

1. Leave of absence was granted to Rajesh Krishna and Ajit Rai.

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 28 May were approved.

3. The meeting was convened to discuss the opinion received from Markand Gandhi & Co. on 2 June 2025 regarding the Case for Opinion submitted by the Managing Committee on 27 May 2025. The opinion was shared with all RdC members by Pammu on 2 June 2025.

4. The RdC’s view on the opinion from Markand Gandhi & Co. is provided in Appendix A.

5. Based on the RdC’s view of the legal opinion, and keeping in mind the urgency of moving forward with the redevelopment process, the RdC’s advice to the Managing Committee is set out in Appendix B.

6. The RdC requested Pammu to convey the RdC’s position, as articulated in Appendix A and Appendix B, to the Managing Committee. He may also post these on the MC WhatsApp group to ensure timely communication given the urgency of the matter.

Appendix A
The key question raised by the Society in its Case for Opinion to Markand Gandhi & Co. was:

Query No. 3: Whether inviting fresh bids without cancelling the previous tender can be challenged by (a) the four bidders who submitted bids earlier, (b) any other developer who purchased the tender document earlier but did not bid, or (c) any member of the Society.

In the opinion dated 2 June 2025, Markand Gandhi & Co. referred to their earlier email dated 13 March 2025, stating that redevelopment tender documents constitute an invitation to offer. Offers received do not bind the Society in any way, and the Society retains full discretion to accept or reject any bid.

However, this reference to the 13 March 2025 communication is not fully relevant. That earlier advice was given in response to the Society’s letter of 11 March 2025 which discussed cancelling the existing bids before issuing a new RFP. In contrast, the present question concerns inviting fresh bids while keeping the previously opened bids alive.

Therefore, the conditions underlying the earlier advice were different. The RdC notes that the present query required direct answers to the following:

a. Whether the four earlier bidders can challenge the action.
b. Whether any developer who purchased the tender but did not bid can challenge the action.
c. Whether any Society member can challenge the action.

These questions were not directly answered. The opinion reiterates that the Society may accept or reject bids at its discretion, but that does not address the specific risk of inviting fresh bids without cancelling the earlier ones. The RdC therefore finds the opinion insufficiently responsive to the core issue.

Appendix B
Regarding the floating of a revised tender, four issues require decisions. The RdC’s position on each is set out below.

1. The revised tender should be open only to the 25 entities that purchased the tender document earlier.
   The alternative would be to open bidding to all interested parties. The RdC reiterates its earlier reasoning from the meeting held on 31 May 2025:
   a. The concern was not the number of purchasers (25 was reasonable) but the low number of valid bids. The priority is increasing bids from existing purchasers, not increasing the number of purchasers.
   b. Broadening participation increases legal risks and will delay appointment of a developer.
   c. Time is critical. A faster and safer process is preferable.
   d. Most leading developers had already purchased the tender. The existing 25 include reputable names sufficient for a healthy second round.
   e. Opening the tender to new parties will significantly extend timelines.

2. The revised tender should not invite bids under Regulation 33(7B) or 33(9) of the DCPR 2034.
   Reasons:
   a. The previous tender invited bids under these Regulations, and those bids have been opened and are still valid.
   b. Details of the opened bids are effectively public since the PMC’s comparative statement was circulated widely.
   c. Inviting new bids under the same Regulations while earlier bids are open is unfair to previous bidders.
   d. This exposes the Society to potential legal challenges.
   e. The purpose of a revised tender was to broaden the regulatory scope, particularly by enabling bids under Regulation 33(20B). There is no reason to invite new bids under 33(7B) or 33(9).
   f. Nothing material has changed since January 2025 to justify inviting further bids under these Regulations.

3. The revised tender should be restricted to bids under Regulation 33(11), 33(20B), or any combination of Regulations.
   Rationale:
   a. The goal of the revised tender is to expand regulatory options, not revisit earlier ones.
   b. Regulation 33(20B) was announced in October 2024 and could not be included earlier due to timing and lack of clarity.
   c. Several developers are now interested in bidding under 33(20B), and neighbouring societies (such as Artek) have successfully used combinations including 33(20B).
   d. Restricting the revised tender to Regulations not offered earlier reduces legal exposure.

4. Do not cancel the bids from the earlier tender; keep them in abeyance until the new bids are received and opened.
   Reasons:
   a. It is beneficial to retain existing bids if safely possible. Cancelling them serves no purpose.
   b. At least one earlier bid is close to expectations and may be useful in future negotiations.
   c. The General Body was not in favour of cancelling the bids.
   d. Not cancelling the bids is safe only if Regulations 33(7B) and 33(9) are excluded from the revised tender.
   e. It is also safe if the revised tender is limited to Regulations not previously offered (33(11), 33(20B), and combinations thereof).

5. Inviting bids under Regulation 33(7B) or 33(9) while keeping earlier bids alive exposes the Society to legal challenges. The RdC strongly recommends avoiding this approach.