The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate challenging certain tender conditions issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO) in relation to procurement and infrastructure works, holding that the petition did not meet the criteria of a genuine public interest litigation. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, observed that the petitioner sought to espouse the cause of firms, contractors, and companies, rather than the interests of individuals who are economically disadvantaged or unable to access justice without the intervention of the courts, and in doing so misused the PIL mechanism. The Court emphasized that a PIL is meant to protect the rights of marginalized persons or groups who lack the resources to approach the judiciary themselves, and not to advance the commercial interests of private entities challenging tender criteria. The petitioner questioned four tender notifications and purchase orders relating to the supply, laying, and commissioning of 220 kV underground cables for transmission infrastructure in the Guntur district, alleging that the eligibility and technical criteria were restrictive and tailored to favour select private bidders, thereby violating fundamental guarantees and harming public exchequer and fair competition under constitutional provisions.
In his challenge, the petitioner contended that the qualification requirements stipulated in the tenders were arbitrary and restrictive, alleging that conditions such as requiring execution of works exceeding a specified large monetary threshold for government or public sector undertakings, execution of the entire quantity of underground cable works within the last decade, profitability for several consecutive years, absence of blacklisting by government utilities, and lack of ongoing litigation with the state power utility were designed with mala fide intent and to create a pre-determined and restricted participation process. The petitioner argued that these tender pre-conditions effectively eliminated competition and were disadvantageous to smaller firms or those lacking extensive prior experience, and asserted that they undermined principles of level playing field and transparency in public procurement.
The respondents, including the State and AP TRANSCO, opposed the PIL on several grounds. They argued that the evaluation of tender criteria is essentially a commercial function where courts should exercise restraint and the principles of equity or natural justice do not apply in the same manner as they would in adjudicatory or administrative actions. The State further submitted that the petitioner had not participated in the bidding process and thus lacked the locus to challenge the tender conditions, and that the tenders had already been published, opened, finalised, and work had commenced, rendering any judicial interference impractical. The respondents also highlighted that the PIL was filed significantly after the tender notifications, suggesting that the delay in approach to the court indicated misuse of the PIL mechanism, and contended that tenderers and other prospective bidders had not themselves objected to the conditions.
In its analysis, the High Court reiterated established legal principles governing public interest litigation and judicial review of commercial tender processes. The Court held that for a PIL to be maintainable, it must genuinely seek to protect the interests of disadvantaged or marginalized persons who are unable to access judicial remedies without the exceptional forum of a PIL, and must not be used to advance the private interests of corporations or firms that have access to ordinary legal remedies. The bench observed that a claimant seeking to invalidate actions by an authority must plead and prove bad faith, abuse of power, arbitrariness, or irrationality on the part of the decision-making authority with cogent and specific reasons, and that such a burden of proof was not discharged by the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to establish that the decision-making process concerning the tender conditions was undertaken with mala fide intent or in an arbitrary and irrational manner, and that the materials on record demonstrated the petition to be misconceived and potentially filed with political motives rather than genuine public interest.
The High Court further underscored that judicial review in matters of public procurement is limited to checking whether the decision was unlawful, arbitrary, irrational, or tainted by mala fides, but does not extend to substituting the commercial decisions of tendering authorities merely because a petitioner perceives certain criteria to be restrictive or unfavourable. The Court stressed that equitable considerations or preferences in tender criteria, if legitimately framed to ensure quality, reliability, or technical competency in execution of large infrastructure projects, do not warrant interference unless there is clear evidence of illegality or procedural impropriety.
The bench also noted that the petitioner, being an advocate and not a participant in the tendering process, lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the tender conditions, particularly given that actual participating bidders had not contested them. The Court explained that private entities or bidders with grievances regarding tender criteria have alternative remedies available at law, including contractual remedies or challenges in appropriate forums, and that misusing the PIL route to raise such disputes is impermissible. Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the petition did not constitute a genuine public interest litigation and was unsuitable for judicial intervention under that mechanism.
In dismissing the petition, the Court observed that absent compelling evidence of bad faith or perversity in the decision-making process by AP TRANSCO or the State, the judicial forum should refrain from interfering with commercial and technical aspects of government procurement decisions. The dismissal underscores the judiciary’s stance on maintaining the distinction between genuine public interest matters warranting PIL intervention and disputes that pertain to private commercial interests, asserting that the latter should be pursued through available statutory or contractual remedies rather than through public interest litigation.
The decision also reinforces established jurisprudence on the limited scope of judicial review in procurement matters, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with the commercial discretion of tendering authorities unless there is manifest illegality or abuse of power. In this case, given the absence of demonstrable mala fides, arbitrariness, or irrationality in framing the tender conditions, the High Court found no basis to entertain the PIL, and therefore dismissed it at the admission stage, closing the matter without imposing costs.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.