Whalesbook
The case before the Supreme Court involved a lawyer challenging multiple tender notifications issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO) for large-scale underground cable and transmission infrastructure works. This plea had previously been dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court found the petition lacked merit, noting it was filed long after contracts were awarded and work had begun, and appeared to champion corporate interests rather than genuine public causes.
Judicial Scrutiny of Tenders
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta raised pointed questions about how a practicing advocate gained intimate knowledge of internal government tender processes. The Bench suggested that such litigation is frequently initiated by rival bidders, using legal professionals as fronts to disrupt or gain an advantage in public procurement. "How does an advocate working in a court know how a tender is going... where do you find the time to do all this?" the Court queried.
Allegations and Court's View
The petitioner had alleged that AP TRANSCO's tender qualification criteria unfairly favored specific bidders, thereby limiting competition and potentially causing loss to the public exchequer. However, the High Court had also observed that the petitioner did not participate in the tender process and failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or mala fide actions. The Supreme Court echoed concerns that such petitions were "sponsored litigation by competitors."
Final Order
While initially inclined to impose costs of ₹5 lakh on the petitioner, the Supreme Court ultimately permitted the lawyer to withdraw the PIL. The Bench's remarks indicated a firm stance against advocates participating in what they deemed 'sponsored litigation' or attempting to use legal avenues for 'blackmailing.' This judicial intervention signals a stricter approach to petitions challenging public tenders.