Bombay High Court slaps ₹50k costs on petition against award of contract to Adani Power

The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging a 6,600 Megawatt contract awarded to Adani Power for the supply of renewable and thermal power electricity in the state of Maharashtra..The Court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for filing an 'unsubstantiated' plea. The amount should be paid the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, the Court ordered.The petition filed by Shriraj Nageshwar Aepurwar alleged that the contract violated citizens' fundamental rights to access fair electricity at a reasonable rate under Article 21 of the Constitution.A Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, described the petition as "highly misconceived" and based on "completely unsubstantiated assertions." The Court noted that the petitioner had not participated in the tender process and lacked any evidence to support his claims of corruption and unfair practices.."Certain vague and unsubstantiated assertions have been made describing the award of subject contract as a scam involving government authorities," the Court said. The petitioner has made "reckless statements" and failed to provide supporting material for the allegations, which included accusations against the former chief minister of Maharashtra, the Court opined."Averments have even been made without any supporting material, even against the former chief minister of the state, leveling allegations of him resorting to corrupt practices and being hand in glove with respondent 2 (Adani) while awarding the contract," the Bench noted..The petitioner's reference to a document from a United States district court was also scrutinized. "The document appears to be some charges filed in some district court in the USA," the Court noted.The bench went on to say that the document did not clarify its exact nature and was not submitted as an official affidavit. The Court dismissed the document as insufficient, stating, "Merely on account of order where notices were issued, it cannot be inferred that averments do not get substantiated.".The Court also cited Supreme Court precedents on public interest litigation (PIL) petitions , noting that while courts should entertain PILs for genuine public causes, they must also exercise caution to avoid frivolous petitions. "The instant petition, if scrutinized closely, appears to us to be bereft of any substantiating and supporting material; rather it contains bald and vague allegations which in our opinion do not persuade us to entertain the same," the bench concluded.Hence, it proceeded to dismiss the same with costs.