Patna High Court
Anmol KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The petition was dismissed as it did not qualify as a public interest litigation and the Court declined to interfere with the State’s policy decisions regarding the power project.
Summary
The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the approval, tariff, and land lease arrangements for the Pirpainti Thermal Power Project awarded to Adani Power Ltd. under a design‑build‑finance‑own‑operate model. He alleged that the tariff of ₹6.075/kWh was arbitrary, the bidding process was collusive, and the lease of about 1,020 acres of agricultural land for a nominal rent violated the public trust doctrine and the RFCTLARR Act. The State, represented by the Advocate General, contended that the matter involved policy decisions and that any grievance should be addressed to the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Court examined the pleadings, found the allegations vague and lacking specific material, and noted that no aggrieved party had approached any authority. Consequently, the Court held that the petition did not qualify as a public interest litigation and dismissed it. The petition was therefore disposed of without interference in the State’s policy decisions.
Issues considered
- Whether the adoption of the high tariff of ₹6.075/kWh is justifiable given comparative market tenders and alleged irregularities in the bidding process.
- Whether the bidding process (Case No.36/2025) was tainted with collusion, rendering the competitive bidding premise invalid.
- Whether the lease of approximately 1,020 acres of agricultural land at Rs 1 per annum violates the Public Trust Doctrine and statutory compensation norms under the RFCTLARR Act.
- Whether the State Government and related agencies violated statutory mandates by failing to ensure proper compensation and by suppressing data on land acquisition.
- Whether the State’s failure to ensure transparent, independent valuation of land and the preferential lease to a private bidder constitute an arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power justifying judicial intervention.
- Whether the adequacy and transparency of data in the Central Electricity Authority’s Resource Adequacy Report 2024 justify the contested tariff and lease arrangements.
- Whether the constitutional rights of cultivators to livelihood and protection of public property are infringed by the lease at token consideration without adequate rehabilitation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Tariff Based Competitive Bidding
- Land Acquisition
- Power Project
- Arbitrariness
- State Policy
- Compensation
- RFCTLARR Act
- Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission
- Environmental Law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5531 of 2026
======================================================
Anmol Kumar Son of Manoj Kumar, Resident of Nathupur, Bihta, P.O. -
Doghra, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna - 801112.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar at
Patna.
2. Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited (BSPGCL), Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Pin - 800021, Patna, Bihar.
3. Bihar State Holding Company Limited (BSPHCL), Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, PIN- 800021, Patna, Bihar.
4. South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL), Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, PIN- 800021, Patna, Bihar.
5. North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (NBPDCL), Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, PIN- 800021, Patna, Bihar.
6. Adani Power Ltd., Adani Corporate House, Shantigram, Near Vaishnodevi
Circle, S.G. Highway, Khodiyar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, PIN- 382421, India.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Deepali Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, AG
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, AC to AG
: Mr. Mohit Agarwal, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 29-06-2026
The petitioner is present through learned counsel,
Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh. The learned Advocate General, Mr.
S.D. Sanjay is present on advance notice and waives formal
notice.
2. The petitioner is a practicing advocate at this
Court and claims to have no personal, direct or indirect
interest in the present matter. The petitioner has approached
this Court contending that he is raising bona fide issues of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5531 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
2/8
grave public interest regarding the approval, establishment
and operation of the Pirpainti Thermal Power Project-2400 MW
(3X800 MW) ultra-supercritical coal-based power plant
proposed at Pirpainti, Bhagalpur District, Bihar and awarded
to Respondent No.6 under a Design, Build, Finance, Own and
Operate model for a contractual period for 33 years.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that approval for this project was granted by the
Bihar State Cabinet in March 2025, pursuant to the nodal
agency Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited
having accepted the project. That, the procurement was
processed under tariff based competitive bidding procedure
on 16.07.2025 in which Respondent No.6 emerged as the
lowest bidder out of the four qualified bidders. Respondent
No.6 is to make an aggregate investment exceeding
Rs.28,000/- crore with target commissioning of the first unit in
48 months and full capacity within 60 months of the award.
That on comparison with tariffs of similar capital-intensive
projects in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh,
it is found that the relatively high tariff for the instant project
has been accepted which is manifestly, arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of statutory provisions. Hence,
the prayers in the writ petition are as follows:
“ (i) To direct the Respondents to
bring on record the Power Supply
Agreement entered into with Adani Power
Limited for the Pirpainti Thermal Power
Project and set aside the said agreement
Patna High Court CWJC No.5531 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
3/8
on the grounds that the tariff of ₹6.075 per
KWH fixed pursuant to the Tariff Based
Competitive Bidding (TBCB) process is
arbitrary, unreasonable and not in the
public interest, especially considering
higher rates compared to other States and
without adequate transparent justification
of coal premium impact and cost
components as highlighted in the tariff
petition before Bihar Electricity Regulatory
Commission (BERC).
(ii) For quashing the approval
dated 4th February 2025 by the Bihar State
Government and subsequent decisions
permitting the lease of approximately
1,020 acres of prime agricultural land
located at Village Pirpainti, Bhagalpur
district to the L1 bidder (Adani Power Ltd.)
at the nominal consideration of Rs. 1/- per
annum for a period of 33 years or the term
of the Power Supply Agreement, whichever
is shorter, as such lease amount is
arbitrary, discriminatory and violates
principles of public trust, equity and grossly
deprives the State exchequer and affected
landowners of fair and just compensation.
(iii) To direct the Respondents to
ensure effective and transparent
implementation of fair market valuation
principles with respect to public land
acquisition and lease arrangements,
immediately provide just and fair
compensation to all affected cultivators
and landowners whose rights and
livelihoods have been or are at risk due to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5531 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
4/8
the impugned actions supported by
documented evidence of pending
payments and deprivation.
(iv) To direct the Respondents to
conduct and disclose an independent and
judicially supervised audit of the Central
Electricity Authority's (CEA) Resource
Adequacy Report 2024 estimates,
particularly scrutinizing the basis of the
projected 11,758 MW installed capacity
requirement against the existing
commissioned and tied-up capacity
approximating 9,332 MW, and the
genuineness and detailed causation of
delays in prior thermal and renewable
power projects.
(v) To direct the Respondents,
including Bihar Electricity Regulatory
Commission (BERC), BSPGCL and State
Government authorities to establish
immediate protocols and mechanisms for
the regular publication of all relevant data
related to capacity additions, project
timelines, tariff determinations and land
transactions concerning power projects on
official government portals for wider public
and judicial scrutiny to ensure
transparency and accountability.”
4. The petitioner further avers that the moot
questions involved in the PIL are:
I. Whether the adoption of the
high tariff of ₹6.075/kWh is justifiable given
comparative market tenders and the
suspicious patterns in bidding documents
and their rationale?
Patna High Court CWJC No.5531 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
5/8
II. Whether the bidding process
conducted under Case No.36/2025 is
tainted with collusion evident from near-
identical bids even in decimals, invalidating
the premise of public transparent
competitive bidding?
III. Whether the decision of the
State Government to lease approximately
1,020 acres extensive fertile agricultural
land at Rs. 1/- per annum is violative of the
Public Trust Doctrine and statutory norms,
including mandatory compensation under
the RFCTLARR Act?
IV. Whether the Bihar Government
and related agencies violated statutory
mandates, failed proper compensatory
payment and suppressed essential data on
land acquisition and compensation to allow
mala fide privilege to the corporate bidder?
V. Whether the State's failure to
ensure transparent, independent valuation
of land, lack of competitive bidding for land
lease disproportionately favouring private
commercial interests over the public
interest and fails to protect the
constitutional rights of affected
stakeholders is unlawful, arbitrary and
discriminatory exercise of power, justifying
intervention and redress under the writ
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court?
VI. Whether the availability,
adequacy, genuineness and transparency
of data and official justifications relied upon
by the Respondents especially as
articulated in the Central Electricity
Authority's Resource Adequacy Report
2024 regarding installed capacity
requirements (estimated at 11,758 MW)
and the purported reasons for delays in
ongoing thermal and renewable projects
justify the urgent procurement of power
under the contested tariff and lease
arrangements?
VII. Whether constitutional
mandates of protecting the right to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5531 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
6/8
livelihood of cultivators, safeguarding
public property and upholding equitable
resource allocation are contravened by the
State's decisions authorizing lease at token
consideration without ensuring adequate
compensation, rehabilitation and
alternative livelihood provisions?
5. Although the petitioner is a practicing advocate
in this High Court and claims not to have any personal
interest in the present matter, we notice that there is no
averment or submission with regard to the petitioner being a
public spirited person or taking up any cause for the public at
large at any other prior instance.
6. The learned Advocate General, while objecting to
the maintainability of the application, submits that the
application preempts that the tariffs that are likely to be paid
in 2030 are going to be high, as can be culled out from the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner
which cannot be considered at this juncture. That, if any
person is aggrieved by the outcome of the bids, then it is the
Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission which is the
concerned authority before whom the complaint has to be
lodged. Besides the gamut of facts presented clearly indicate
that it is a policy decision taken by the State and ought not to
be tampered as it deals with the interest of the Bihar public at
large.
7. Having given due consideration to the
submissions and perused the averments and the documents
on record as well as a document pertaining to competitive
Patna High Court CWJC No.5531 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
7/8
chart made over to this Court across the Bar, we deem it
essential to point out that in a Public Interest Litigation, the
Court is to be prima facie satisfied that the information laid
before the Court is of such a nature that it calls for
examination. This satisfaction is to be derived from the
character and standing of the informant, the nature of the
information given by him whether it is vague or contains
specific allegations, the gravity or seriousness of the
complaint set out in the information.
8. From the averments made in the petition and the
submissions advanced, the petitioner himself has admitted
that the project was approved by the State Cabinet and by
the nodal agency Bihar State Power Generation Company
Limited. The procurement was processed under the tariff
based competitive bidding procedure conducted on the ETS
bidding portal in which the Respondent No.6 emerged as the
lowest bidder.
9. In view of the above circumstances, we find that
the allegations made are vague, nebulous and appears to be
based on private interest as none of the other parties, who
have lost out in the bid to the Respondent No. 6, have
approached any authority much less this Court, complaining
of any irregularities in the bidding process or the award of the
bid.
10. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of
the learned Advocate General that all decisions made in the
matter is a policy decision and cannot be tampered with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5531 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
8/8
Court sans specific materials in the matter to substantiate the
allegations.
11. Consequently, we are of the considered view
that the instant petition does not qualify as Public Interest
Litigation and we are not inclined to consider it. The petition,
accordingly, stands dismissed and disposed of.
(Meenakshi Madan Rai, CJ)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.