The Bombay High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation and related Interim Applications, refusing to interfere with the Rs. 3,000 crore composite power procurement tender floated by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL).
The petitioner, Rajesh Sharma, General Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, challenged the entire tendering process initiated by MSEDCL for the procurement of 1,600 MW thermal and 5,000 MW solar power through composite competitive bidding. The petitioner claimed violations of Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and alleged that mandatory central government guidelines for long-term power procurement were breached, transparency was compromised, and competition was suppressed.
MSEDCL had published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 13 March 2024. After extensions and clarifications, bids were submitted and processed. MSEDCL received approval for deviations from the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in July 2024, as required by guidelines. The successful bidder was awarded the contract in October 2024, well before the litigation was launched. The petitioner repeatedly raised objections and sought quashing of the tender, but never joined the winning bidder as a party.
The petitioner argued that MSEDCL proceeded “in hot haste,” bypassed guidelines requiring prior approval, and tailored tender conditions to favour select bidders. MSEDCL and the State insisted that all necessary approvals were obtained, procedures followed openly, and the tender process was valid and necessary for reliable public power supply.
The petitioner relied on Energy Watchdog v. CERC[1] and other Supreme Court cases to argue that transparent bidding and advance government approval of deviations are mandatory. MSEDCL argued that public interest was best served by timely contracts and consumer protection, and claimed that the petition was a publicity-motivated misuse of judicial process.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that guidelines and model bidding documents allowed latitude in administrative decision-making, and MSEDCL took all required permissions before the final phase of bidding. The Court drew attention to the lack of concrete evidence of favouritism or arbitrary action.
The Court held that third-party political petitioners have no locus standi in routine commercial contracting unless clear constitutional or public law violation is proved. Mere procedural irregularity or differences in price do not justify judicial intervention. The judgment cited multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Balco Employees,[2] Cartel Infotech,[3] and Tata Cellular,[4] as well as the Wednesbury principles on limited judicial review.
In result, the Court held that there was no evidence that the conditions of the tender were “tailor-made” to suit any single bidder or that there was any breach of transparency or public interest. The Court found that public interest is served by timely execution and reliable supply. The public interest litigation was characterized as a motivated attempt for publicity, not a genuine pro bono effort. The petition and interim applications were dismissed.
Cases relied on:
1. Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors., 2017 (14) SCC 80
2. Villianur Iyarkka v. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 561
3. Balco Employees v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333
4. Jagbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Hazi Bashir Ahmed & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671
5. Cartel Infotech Ltd v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation of India, 2019 (14) SCC 81
6. Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 679
7. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
8. Raunaq International Ltd v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492
9. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402
Appearances:
Mr. Nishant Chothani a/w Ms. Sneha Patil & Mr. Hrishikesh Joshi i/b Maniar Srivastava Associates, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the Respondent no.1 (State of Maharashtra).
Mrs. Snehaz V. Bharucha i/b Mr. A.A. Ansari Advocates for the Respondent no.2 (Union of India).
Ms. Deepa Chawan, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Saloni Kapadia, Mr. Karan Gandhi i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocates for the Respondent no.3 (MSEDCL).
[1] 2017 (14) SCC 80
[2] (2002) 2 SCC 333
[3] 2019 (14) SCC 81
[4] (1994) 6 SCC 651
