VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the tender notification issued for laying underground electricity cables in the capital region of Amaravati.
During the hearing, the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Cheemalapati Ravi, posed several questions to the petitioner, particularly on the delay in challenging the tender conditions nearly a year after the notification was issued.
The bench observed that three companies had participated in the bidding process, and questioned what was wrong in awarding the tender to BSR Infratech, which emerged as the L1 bidder.
The PIL was filed by advocate Kaniti Deepak, seeking the cancellation of the tender notification as well as the purchase orders issued subsequently for the underground power cable project in Amaravati.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, counsel Metta Chandrasekhar contended that the tender conditions were framed in a manner to favour select entities.
He submitted that only six companies across the country have experience in laying underground power cables, and alleged that BSR Infratech lacked such experience.
He further argued that the actual cable-laying work was sub-contracted to Universal Cables Limited, and that four separate tenders were awarded to a single entity, causing a loss of over Rs 400 crore to the State’s exchequer.
Opposing the petition, Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas stated that the petitioner had approached the court without proper study and attempted to mislead it by suppressing the facts. He clarified that three companies participated in the bidding process, and BSR Infratech emerged as the lowest bidder.
He stated that tender conditions permit the engagement of technically qualified sub-contractors and that Universal Cables Limited is among the six companies with proven experience in underground cable laying. He also pointed out that the tender notification was issued in November last year, and any objections should have been raised at that stage.
After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the court stated that it would issue a detailed order and accordingly reserved the judgment.