Court Upholds Tender Process; Emphasizes No Evidence of Arbitrariness or Malafide Intent in Tender Conditions.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on February 4, 2026, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Kanithi Deepak challenging the tender conditions set by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (AP TRANSCO). The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, found no grounds to interfere with the tender process, emphasizing the lack of arbitrariness or malafide intention in the conditions set by AP TRANSCO.
The PIL, filed by practicing advocate Kanithi Deepak, alleged that the tender conditions were designed to favor certain contractors and manufacturers, specifically M/s Universal Cables Limited. The petitioner contended that the technical qualifications required were excessively restrictive and unrelated to the scope of underground cable works, effectively eliminating fair competition and leading to potential misuse of public funds.
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Metta Chendra Sekhar Rao argued that the tender conditions violated principles of fair competition and transparency in public procurement, thus infringing upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner further claimed that the conditions were crafted to ensure a predetermined outcome, favoring specific bidders.
Countering these claims, Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas defended the tender process, arguing that the courts should refrain from intervening in administrative decisions unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafide intent is presented. The Advocate General highlighted that the petitioner, having filed the PIL long after the tender process was completed, failed to establish any malafide intention by AP TRANSCO.
The court concurred with the respondents, emphasizing that the petitioner did not participate in the tender process nor proved any arbitrariness or malafide intent. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the bench reiterated that judicial review of tender processes is limited to assessing compliance with procedural law and not substituting the court's decision for that of the contracting authority.
Furthermore, the court noted that the PIL appeared to be filed with ulterior motives, possibly for personal or political gain, rather than genuine public interest. Highlighting the importance of safeguarding the PIL mechanism from misuse, the court underscored that such litigations should aim to protect the rights of the economically weaker sections and not serve individual interests.
In conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the PIL, reinforcing the notion that the judiciary should exercise restraint in interfering with tender processes absent clear evidence of malfeasance. The court's decision reiterates the judiciary's role in maintaining the balance between ensuring procedural fairness and respecting administrative discretion in tender matters.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation challenging tender conditions set by AP TRANSCO dismissed on grounds of lack of arbitrariness or malafide intention, and late filing by petitioner who did not participate in the tender process.
Statutory provision(s): Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
Kanithi Deepak v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849378
