Bombay High Court fines ₹50k on petition contesting contract awarded to Adani Power

On Monday, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition challenging the 6,600 Megawatt contract awarded to Adani Power for supplying renewable and thermal electricity in Maharashtra, stating that the allegations lacked merit and substantiation. The Court also imposed a ₹50,000 penalty on the petitioner, Shriraj Nageshwar Aepurwar, for filing an “unsubstantiated” and “frivolous” petition. The fine must be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within six weeks.
Aepurwar’s petition argued that the contract violated citizens’ fundamental rights to fair access to electricity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Bench, consisting of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, deemed the petition “highly misconceived” and criticized it for being based on “completely unsubstantiated assertions.”
The Court highlighted that the petitioner had not participated in the tendering process and failed to provide credible evidence to support his claims of corruption or unfair practices. The Bench noted that the allegations were vague and speculative, describing the petitioner’s statements as “reckless” and unsupported by any material facts. These included claims that the contract was part of a “scam” involving government officials and accusations against the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
The petitioner’s reliance on a document from a U.S. district court was also examined. The Court found the document unclear and not submitted as an official affidavit, noting that the mere existence of charges in the U.S. court did not substantiate the claims made in the petition.
The Court further referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court regarding Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It emphasized that while PILs are intended to address genuine public concerns, they must be based on credible evidence. “This petition lacks any supporting material and consists of vague allegations that fail to persuade us,” the Bench concluded. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the imposed costs.
In its ruling, the Court underscored the importance of ensuring that PILs are filed with due diligence and not used as a tool to advance baseless claims. It reminded petitioners that the legal system should be free of frivolous cases, especially those lacking proper evidence or a clear public interest.