The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reserved its judgment on a significant public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the tender process for underground electric cable works in the state capital, Amaravati. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, concluded hearing arguments from both sides on Wednesday and stated that a detailed order will be passed subsequently.
Petitioner Alleges Favouritism and Massive Loss
The PIL was filed by one K Deepak, who sought the cancellation of purchase orders issued following the tender notification. Representing the petitioner, advocate Metta Chandra Sekhar presented a series of serious allegations before the court. He contended that the tender norms were deliberately designed to suit a specific company, BSR Infratech.
Chandra Sekhar argued that while only six companies in India possess experience in laying underground electric cables, the contract was awarded to BSR Infratech, which allegedly has no prior experience in such specialised works. He further claimed that the actual work was sub-contracted to another firm, Universal Cables.
The counsel made a staggering claim about the financial impact, alleging that the state exchequer suffered a colossal loss of Rs 400 crore due to this project. He informed the court that four tenders had been awarded to the same company, amplifying the alleged irregularities.
State Government's Firm Rebuttal
Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas, representing the state government, offered a strong rebuttal to the petitioner's claims. He accused the petitioner of failing to conduct basic research before approaching the court and of attempting to mislead the bench by suppressing crucial facts.
Srinivas clarified that contrary to the petitioner's assertion, three other companies participated in the competitive bidding process alongside BSR Infra. He emphasized that BSR Infratech emerged as the lowest bidder, which formed the basis for the allotment. The Advocate General questioned the timing of the petition, noting that the tender notification was issued in November 2024.
He argued that if the petitioner had genuine objections to the tender norms, he should have approached the court promptly at that time. Srinivas also stated that any grievance regarding tailored norms should rightfully come from the unsuccessful bidders, as the aggrieved parties, not from a third party.
Court's Pointed Questions and Final Decision
The High Court bench actively engaged with the arguments, posing pointed questions to the petitioner's counsel. The judges sought an explanation for the delay in filing the petition long after the tender notification was issued. They also questioned the fundamental premise of the challenge, asking what was legally wrong with awarding a contract to the lowest bidder among the four participating companies.
After a thorough consideration of the submissions from both the petitioner and the state government, the bench decided to reserve its orders. The court's forthcoming detailed judgment is keenly awaited, as it will have significant implications for the Amaravati infrastructure project and the procedures governing public tenders in the state.
