PIL Not Meant For Firms Or Contractors: AP High Court Dismisses PIL On AP TRANSCO Tender Conditions

The petitioner questioned four tender notifications and purchase orders relating to supply, laying and commissioning of 220 kV underground cables relating to transmission infrastructure in Guntur, and alleged that the eligibility and technical criteria were restrictive and tailored to favour select private bidders, and thereby violative of Fundamental Rights of the Company under Article 19(1)(g), and detrimental to Public Exchequer and fair competition.

Reiterating that Courts have to be cautious about litigation not being misused in the name of public interest, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed,

“… 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 and cannot take resort to the remedies which are otherwise available to them in law. If such is the case, this Court fails to understand as to how the PIL is maintainable.”

The Division Bench further stated that the tenderers, and other companies, firms, contractors who participated in the bid, did not question the impugned conditions and the petitioner, who did not even participate in the tender process questioned the tender conditions without any basis.

In his challenge, the petitioner argued that they were tailored to suit the unofficial respondents and thereby ensured a pre-determined and restricted participation process, thereby raising serious concerns of arbitrariness, collusion and misappropriation of public funds.

He argued that the qualification requirements stipulated in the tender, such as execution of works of more than Rs.300 crores for Government/PSUs and 100% execution of 220 kV XLPE underground cable quantity within the last ten years, were arbitrary and restrictive.

The conditions stipulated that the cable manufacturer must be in profit for the last three consecutive years, should not have been blacklisted by any Government power utility in the last year, and should not be under litigation with any AP Government power utility. The petitioner alleged that such conditions were articulated with mala-fide intention and to imbalance a level playing field.

In contrast, the State argued that evaluating tender conditions are commercial functions where principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance, and power of judicial review cannot be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest. Further, it was submitted that the tender conditions were notified in 2024, and the PIL was filed in 2025 as a “blackmail tactic”. Lastly, he submitted that tenders were already opened, finalised, agreements were entered upon and the work had also commenced.

Reiterating that a claimant who seeks to invalidate any act must establish bad faith or an abuse or misuse by the authority of its powers, the Court dismissed the PIL and held,

“…. the petitioner has failed to plead and prove, in specific, that the decision made by the respondent authority is malafide, arbitrary and irrational 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.”

Case Details:

Case Number: WP(PIL) NO: 239 of 2025

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order