Bombay HC Slaps ₹50K Cost On Litigant For Making 'Unsubstantiated' Allegations Of Scam By Maharashtra Govt In Awarding Contract To Adani Power

The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a writ petitioner alleging that a contract awarded by the Maharashtra government to Adani Power for supplying electricity was a "scam" and that the former Chief Minister was involved in corrupt practices while awarding the contract.

The petitioner alleged that the contract for the supply of 6600 megawatts renewable thermal power awarded to Adani Power was a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right of having access to fair electricity supply at a reasonable rate under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, not finding any merits in the petitioner's arguments, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar said "In our opinion, filing of such writ petition containing unsubstantiated and reckless averments run the risk of sometimes even good causes being lost."

When the petitioner stated that the petition had not been filed in his personal interest, the CJ orally remarked "There's a hidden agenda". He said that “merely by crying scam...doesnt impress us”

In its order, the Court noted that the petitioner made vague and unsubstantiated Assertions that the contract awarded was a scam involving the government authorities.

It noted that the petitioner's averments did not contain any supporting materials to show that the former CM was involved in corrupt practices and colluded with Adani while awarding the public contract.

The petitioner referred to the recent indictment of Gautam Adani by the United States Department of Justice in a U.S District Court, which alleged that Adani orchestrated a million-dollar bribery scheme in the USA to bribe Indian government officials. However, the Court stated that the petitioner failed to indicate the exact nature of the document and said that the submissions cannot be accepted merely on the basis of charges filed in a US Court.

It also noted that the petitioner was not a participant in the tender process which culminated in the award of the contract to Adani Power. It stated that the petitioner instituted a writ petition and not a PIL, which is not maintainable. It stated that even if the writ petition was read as a PIL, it would not absolve the petitioner's legal duty to institute proceedings with proper evidence.

It remarked that the petition was "bereft of any substantiating and supporting material" and that it contained "absolutely bald and vague allegations which in our opinion does not persuade us to entertain the same."

The Court thus dismissed the petition and imposed costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.