Judicial Review Cannot Be Used to Stall Public Projects Based on Mere Procedural Lapses or Political Allegations: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging MSEDCL’s Power Tender

In a significant pronouncement reinforcing judicial restraint in contractual and policy matters, the Bombay High Court, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to quash the tendering process initiated by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) for long-term procurement of 1600 MW thermal and 5000 MW solar power through a composite competitive bidding process. The Court firmly held that the judicial review under Article 226 is confined to cases of illegality, irrationality, or violation of Article 14, and cannot be used to micromanage public contracts or substitute executive wisdom with judicial perception.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed PIL No. 100 of 2024, filed by Rajesh Sharma, a political office-bearer, observing that the petition was "misconceived and misdirected", lacked bona fides, and appeared to be a "mask of public interest litigation intended at cheap publicity and to stall the project".

“Public Contracts Are Not Open to Challenge by Political Strangers Without Proven Public Interest”: Court Rejects Locus of Petitioner

The Court took serious exception to the petitioner’s standing, stating that: “A person who is not a party to the transaction need not be heard in ordinary circumstances unless he establishes substantial and demonstrable public interest on the basis of a concrete factual position.”

Holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any concrete injury to public interest, the Bench reiterated that PILs are not meant to serve as weapons to challenge economic decisions or policy matters by political opponents or strangers, relying on established Supreme Court jurisprudence in BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India and Villianur Iyarkkai v. Union of India.

Referring to Jagbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, the Court invoked the classic distinction between a “person aggrieved” and a “busybody or meddlesome interloper”, remarking: “They masquerade as crusaders for justice... They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives.”

“MERC's Displeasure About Delay in Seeking Approval Cannot Nullify the Legality of the Tender”: No Flaws Found in Composite Procurement Process

The core legal challenge raised by the petitioner was that MSEDCL had allegedly bypassed mandatory guidelines under the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly the Thermal Guidelines (2019) and Solar Guidelines (2023), by floating a composite bid without securing prior approvals from the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) and the appropriate Government.

However, the Court decisively held that: “The observations of MERC in para 9 and 13.6 do not cast any aspersion on the conduct of MSEDCL. Expression of displeasure for delay in filing the petition for prior approval cannot be construed as doubt over the legality of the bidding process.”

The Court acknowledged that MERC had ultimately approved the deviations and permitted the composite procurement by order dated 12th July 2024, after due consideration of demand forecasts, resource adequacy, and the financial structure of the bid. The Bench emphasized:

“Without laying challenge to the order dated 12th July 2024, the petitioner seeks to rely on selective observations of MERC, which is impermissible. A judgment must be read as a whole, not in piecemeal.”

“Judicial Review Cannot Be a Weapon to Enforce Economic Wisdom or Compete with Executive Policy”: Tender Process Within Bounds of Law

Dismissing arguments about absence of guidelines under Section 63 permitting composite bidding, the High Court reiterated settled law from Energy Watchdog v. CERC and Tata Cellular v. Union of India, observing:

“The non-issuance of specific guidelines under Section 63 does not restrict the Distribution Licensee from floating a composite bid. No statutory bar exists, and no violation of the Electricity Act has been shown.”

On the petitioner’s challenge regarding lack of a Resource Adequacy Study, the Court held: “The NIT referred to the Resource Adequacy Framework of the CEA. MERC was satisfied with the demand projections and granted its approval. This Court cannot second-guess the decision-making process absent mala fides or patent unreasonableness.”

The Bench cautioned that Courts should not step into technical and commercial domains best left to specialized regulators and executive authorities: “This is not the domain of the Courts to embark upon an inquiry to find whether a particular administrative decision was wise. The Court’s concern is limited to seeing whether the selection was arbitrary or unfair.”

“Every Commercial Decision Cannot Be Judicially Scrutinized Merely Because State Is a Party”: No Article 14 Violation or Favouritism Found

Refuting the petitioner’s insinuations that the NIT was designed to benefit a particular industrial house, the Court found no evidence of any tailor-made conditions, arbitrariness, or favouritism. It held: “There is no challenge to any condition in the NIT being arbitrary or tailored to suit a particular person. The rhetoric about a business entity being favored is unsubstantiated.”

On the scope of judicial review in tenders, the Court quoted from Cartel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.:

“Almost every small or big tender is now sought to be challenged in writ proceedings as a matter of routine. This affects efficacy of public sector and turns award of contracts into a cumbersome, litigation-prone exercise.”

The Court warned against such routine interference, highlighting the chilling effect on public procurement and the delay it causes in commissioning essential infrastructure like power projects.

“Filing PIL Before Opening of Bids and Not Impleading the Successful Bidder Are Fatal Procedural Lapses”: Petition Declared Legally Unsustainable

Noting that the petition was filed before the opening of bids and that the successful bidder was never impleaded, the Court observed: “This circumstance cannot be overlooked – the petition was filed even before bids were opened. The petitioner had no idea who would be the bidders. The successful bidder was never made a party. These are fatal omissions.”

Further, the work order was already issued on 3rd October 2024, and the project had moved into execution. The Court reiterated that PILs cannot be weaponized to retroactively scuttle public projects after contracts are finalized.

“The Real Public Interest Lies in Ensuring Timely Completion of Infrastructure and Cost-Effective Power Supply”: Court Upholds Public Purpose of the Tender

In a sharp rebuke to the petitioner’s purported public interest claims, the Court underlined the broader public benefit involved: “The public interest is served when the contract is executed in timely manner and the services become available to the public.”

It emphasized that the objective of competitive bidding, even in a composite format, is to secure the lowest possible tariff for consumers, a goal that the MERC explicitly considered while approving the deviations.

“This Is a Clear Abuse of Public Interest Litigation Jurisdiction — Court Cannot Be Used as a Forum for Political or Commercial Rivalry”

In its closing remarks, the High Court declared the PIL a gross misuse of judicial process, echoing the Supreme Court’s observations in State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal:

“Speedy access to justice has been misused by filing this writ petition. There is no real and genuine public interest involved. This Court must protect the sanctity of its PIL jurisdiction.”

Accordingly, both the PIL and Interim Application No. 13336 of 2024 were dismissed with a categorical finding that “the litigation is politically motivated, not legally sustainable.”

Date of Judgment: 26 September 2025