Safiya Malik

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate challenging tender conditions issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO) for supply, laying, testing and commissioning of 220 kV underground cables for transmission infrastructure projects in Guntur district. The petition assailed four tender notifications and related purchase orders, alleging that the eligibility and technical criteria were restrictive, inconsistent, and structured to favour select private bidders, undermining fair competition and causing loss to the public exchequer. The Court held that the petition sought to advance the interests of firms, contractors and companies rather than economically disadvantaged persons, and declined to interfere with the tender process.

The matter arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed challenging tender notifications issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (AP TRANSCO) for supply, laying, testing, commissioning, and associated works relating to 220 kV underground cable systems and substations in Guntur District. The petitioner alleged that the qualification requirements under Clauses 1.3(iv), 1.3(iii)(A), and 1.4(I), including conditions relating to prior execution of 100% tender quantity, profitability, blacklisting, and litigation status, were structured to favour specific private entities and a particular manufacturer while excluding other eligible participants.

Also Read: Disability Pension Broad-Banding Arrears For Eligible Ex-Servicemen Must Be Paid From January 1, 1996 Or Date Of Retirement Without 3-Year Limit: Supreme Court

It was contended that such conditions were unrelated to underground cable works and resulted in elimination of fair competition. Allegations of inflated quotations and sub-contracting arrangements leading to financial discrepancies were also raised. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that judicial review in tender matters is limited, the petitioner had not participated in the bidding process, and that the works had already been finalized and commenced.

The Court observed that “Unless there is total arbitrariness 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.”

It recorded that “It is settled that burden lies heavily on the petitioner to plead and prove that there is arbitrariness and malafideness on the part of the respondents.”

Referring to precedent, the Court stated that “writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer.” It further noted that “The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view.”

The Bench observed that “Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with the contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues.” It added that “The approach of the court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions.”

On the plea of mala fides, the Court stated, “Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its powers.” It also recorded that “burden of proving malafides is on the person making allegations and burden is very heavy.”

Addressing maintainability, the Court observed that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, had questioned the tender conditions long after issuance and after commencement of works. It further recorded that “the present petition has been filed to espouse cause not of persons who are downtrodden… rather, the petitioner seeks to espouse the cause of a firms/contractors/companies.” The Court noted that “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.”

Upon examining the record, the Bench concluded that the petitioner failed to specifically plead and prove arbitrariness or mala fides in the decision-making process.

Also Read: Look Out Circulars Limited To Exceptional Cases Involving Grave Offences Or National Security Concerns, Not Routine Matrimonial Disputes: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court directed that “Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Metta Chendra Sekhar Rao, Advocate

For the Respondents: Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate General; GP for Energy; V V Satish (SC for APEPDCL)

Case Title: Kanithi Deepak v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Neutral Citation: APHC010699962025

Case Number: WP(PIL) No. 239 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Justice Ravi Cheemalapati