Back
PIL Not Meant for Firms or Contractors: AP High Court Dismisses Challenge to AP TRANSCO Tender Conditions
Introduction
The , in a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, dismissed a (PIL) filed by advocate against the . The PIL challenged tender conditions for transmission infrastructure projects in Guntur district, alleging they were restrictive and favored select bidders. The court held the petition unmaintainable, as it aimed to protect the interests of firms and contractors rather than the downtrodden or economically weaker sections.
Case Background
The petitioner, , an advocate, filed WP(PIL) No. 239 of questioning four tender notifications and related purchase orders issued by AP TRANSCO in and . These tenders involved the supply, laying, testing, and commissioning of 220 kV underground cables and related infrastructure in Guntur district's area, including projects like the diversion of 220 kV lines and upgrades to substations.
The events leading to the dispute centered on the petitioner's claim that the eligibility criteria—such as requiring bidders to have executed works worth over Rs. 300 crores for government/PSUs, 100% execution of 220 kV XLPE underground cable quantities in the last 10 years, profitability for three years, no blacklisting, and no ongoing litigation with AP power utilities—were and tailored to benefit specific private entities, including . This allegedly violated , ensuring a and , while causing detriment to the public exchequer.
The main legal questions were: (1) Whether the tender conditions were , , and ; (2) The maintainability of the PIL for challenging commercial tender processes; and (3) The scope of in such matters. The case was heard on , after tenders had been finalized, agreements signed, and work commenced.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner argued that the technical qualification requirements under Clauses 1.3 and 1.4 of the tenders were unrelated to underground cable laying works and imposed impractical thresholds, such as 100% execution of the tender quantity (290 km) within 10 years and specific manufacturer experience. He contended these were deliberately crafted to favor Respondents 7 and 9 (a contractor and manufacturer), eliminating competition and ensuring pre-determined outcomes. This, he claimed, violated principles of , Article 19(1)(g), and caused misappropriation of public funds through inflated quotes and subcontracting at lower costs. Citing and , the petitioner urged the court to set aside the tenders.
The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, countered that in tender matters is limited to checking for , , or , not substituting commercial decisions. They emphasized that evaluating tenders is a commercial function where equity and natural justice principles do not fully apply, and courts should not protect private interests at public expense. The State highlighted the delay in filing the PIL (tenders notified in , filed in ) as a "blackmail tactic," noting the petitioner did not participate in the bidding and that actual tenderers had not challenged the conditions. Work had already started, rendering interference impractical. Relying on and , they argued the PIL misused the public interest forum for private gains by well-resourced firms.
Legal Analysis
The court applied established principles of in tender disputes, reiterating that review is not to assess the "soundness" of decisions but their lawfulness. It distinguished between 's role in aiding the marginalized and its misuse for commercial entities capable of private remedies. The bench noted the petitioner's failure to specifically plead or prove or with cogent evidence, as required under and , where the burden of proving bad faith is heavy.
Precedents like M/s N.G. Projects Limited were invoked to underline that courts lack expertise in technical commercial matters and should not impose fairer terms; instead, aggrieved parties should seek damages. Dhruv Chawla supported dismissing PILs by advocates challenging tenders post-finalization. highlighted the need for caution against exploiting PIL for individual benefits, relegating disputes to statutory forums. The court clarified that without total or proven misuse of power—as in Tata Cellular —interference is unwarranted, especially since participating bidders accepted the conditions and the petitioner had no .
The analysis distinguished PIL's constitutional purpose under Article 19(1)(g) from contractual disputes, emphasizing that restrictive criteria, if and in public interest, are valid despite excluding some bidders.
Key Observations
- "... the present petition has been filed to espouse cause not of persons who are downtrodden, or belong to an economically weaker section of the society, who are incapable of approaching the Courts for protecting their rights or challenging the action of the State, rather, the petitioner seeks to espouse the cause of a firms/contractors/companies, who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either marginalized or suffer an economic handicap..."
- "The Courts through various pronouncements have repeatedly emphasized the need to be cautious of the fact that litigation in the name of public interest is not permitted to be misused for purposes other than for which it was envisaged and conceived."
- "Unless there is total or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract."
- "The petitioner has failed to plead and prove, in specific, that the decision made by the respondent authority is malafide, and with cogent reasons. On the basis of the material on record, we find that the present petition is misconceived and appears to have been filed with political motives."
Court's Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the PIL at the admission stage, holding it misconceived and unmaintainable due to the lack of proof of or , and its filing to advance interests of non-marginalized entities. No costs were imposed, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
This ruling reinforces limits on judicial intervention in tenders, protecting ongoing public projects from belated challenges while discouraging PIL misuse in commercial arenas. It may deter similar petitions by non-participants, guiding future cases to prioritize evidence of bad faith and confine PIL to genuine public causes affecting the vulnerable, potentially streamlining procurement processes in infrastructure sectors.
