Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday issued notices to the state government and a slew of top officials, directing them to file their contentions over a PIL alleging non-transparent tender proceedings in the award of the Outer Ring Road project for 30 years.
Those issued notices include the principal secretary of the MA&UD, HMDA commissioner, director of Hyderabad Growth Corridor Ltd, and representatives of IRB Infrastructure Developers Limited and IRB Golconda Expressway Limited. The project’s concessional agreement is on a toll-operate-transfer (TOT) model.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao gave the respondents four weeks to file their counter. The court also directed the MA&UD principal secretary and HMDA commissioner to furnish all GOs, records and documents pertaining to the project, along with the counter affidavit.
The court adjourned the case to August 17, when it will peruse the records.
The court also allowed the petitioner of the PIL to serve personal notices to the private respondents, IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd and IRB Golconda Expressway Ltd.
The action came on a PIL filed by Kanugula Mahesh Kumar, of Gowlipura in Hyderabad, who approached the court seeking that the concession agreement be set aside, accusing the government of hiding the initial estimated concessional value for toll collection, operation and maintenance.
Senior counsel Avinash Desai, appearing for the petitioner, informed the court that the authorities had not posted a single GO about the project, or circulars, letter of award or concession agreement in the public domain, contending it was an attempt to suppress information.
He further contended that an agreement for a concession period of 30 years was against the rules promulgated in the HMDA Act, 2008.
Setting a rough toll collection estimate of Rs 88 lakh per day, Desai sought a direction to IRB Infrastructure Developers Limited and IRB Golconda Express Highway Ltd not to transfer the bid concession fee of Rs 7,380 crores to the HMDA. If the amount was transferred, Desai sought a direction to the HMDA not to transfer the bid concession fee of Rs 7,380 crore to the state.
However, the court was not inclined to issue an interim order at this stage.
Justice Shavili, after hearing Desai’s contentions, observed that the money which will be received by the government from this project will be spent on other developmental works and at this initial stage, the court cannot pass any orders.
The bench directed the Advocate General of Telangana to file a detailed counter affidavit and also furnish copies of all GOs pertaining to the project.
Meanwhile, Advocate General B.S. Prasad argued that there was a hidden agenda in filing the PIL.
The petitioner objected to the claim adopted by the HMDA and Telangana government that IECV cannot be disclosed as per NHAI’s Asset Monetisation Policy.
The petitioner submitted that changes brought to the NHAI's Asset Monetization Policy, as enumerated in a circular dated 13.12.2019 and through a memorandum dated 22.09.2020, prevented only the disclosure of IECV during the RFP stage and before the bidding process for TOT bids. The NHAI’s policy clearly mentions that the IECV should be disclosed after the receipt of technical bids and after declaring the selected bidder, Desai told the court.
