Andhra Pradesh HC Declines PIL Challenge to AP TRANSCO Tender Conditions

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Kanithi Deepak v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2026 SCC OnLine AP 288), decided February 4, 2026, held that tender conditions cannot be interfered with in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) absent clear proof of arbitrariness or mala fides, particularly where the challenge is belated and brought by a non-participating party.

The petitioner, Kanithi Deepak, a practicing advocate, contended that the tender notifications incorporated restrictive and allegedly tailored qualification requirements, including (i) mandatory prior execution of infrastructure works exceeding ₹300 crore for government or PSU entities; (ii) proof of execution of 100% of the tendered quantity (approximately 290 km) of 220 kV XLPE underground cable within the preceding ten years with at least two years of successful operation; and (iii) compulsory engagement of subcontractors satisfying identical technical criteria. According to the petitioner, these cumulative requirements effectively restricted competition and favoured specific bidders and a particular cable manufacturer.

Opposing the petition, the State argued that the formulation of tender conditions is a commercial function subject to limited judicial review and that courts should intervene only where the decision-making process is demonstrably arbitrary or mala fide. The State also emphasized that the petitioner, a practicing advocate who neither participated in the tender process nor demonstrated direct prejudice, had approached the Court belatedly after tender finalization and commencement of works.

The High Court reiterated settled principles governing judicial review in tender matters, observing that courts must refrain from substituting administrative or commercial decisions unless clear illegality, arbitrariness, or bad faith is established. The court found that the petitioner failed to plead or prove specific instances of mala fides or procedural irregularity and further held that the PIL sought to advance the interests of commercial entities capable of pursuing remedies independently. In light of these factors, the Court held the PIL to be misconceived and dismissed it at the threshold.