Policy decisions on competitive bidding for power projects cannot be challenged through vague Public Interest Litigations.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the establishment of the Pirpainti Thermal Power Project (2400 MW) in Bhagalpur, Bihar

The project was awarded to Adani Power Ltd. (Respondent No. 6) via a Tariff Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB) process following Cabinet approval in March 2025

The petitioner alleged that the accepted tariff of ₹6.075/kWh was arbitrary compared to other states, that the lease of 1,020 acres of land at a nominal rate of ₹1/- per annum violated the Public Trust Doctrine, and that the bidding process was tainted by collusion

The State contested the maintainability, arguing the petition was premature and concerned policy matters

The Court applied the principles governing Public Interest Litigation, emphasizing that judicial satisfaction must be derived from the character of the informant and the specificity of the information provided

The Court relied on the doctrine of judicial restraint regarding policy decisions, asserting that administrative actions involving technical tenders and economic policies should not be interfered with unless they are patently arbitrary or lack transparency

The Court evaluated the petitioner's locus standi and the nature of the claims. It observed that although the petitioner claimed to represent public interest, there was no evidence of him being a "public-spirited person" with a history of such advocacy

Regarding the merits, the Court noted that the project underwent a formal TBCB process on the ETS portal where Respondent No. 6 emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) among four qualified participants

The Court found the allegations of collusion and high tariffs to be "vague" and "nebulous," noting that no unsuccessful bidders had challenged the award

The Court reasoned that the decisions were fundamental policy matters aimed at the public interest of Bihar and could not be overturned without specific material evidence of irregularity

The Court answered that it would not interfere with State policy decisions regarding infrastructure projects unless manifest illegality is shown. The writ petition was dismissed