Special Report :
A long-standing dispute over two unawarded power projects in Shantahar and Bagerhat is gaining renewed public and legal attention, amid accusations that the current government is continuing to uphold decisions made under the previous Awami League regime – decisions allegedly rooted in political vendetta, not merit.
The projects were part of an international competitive tender floated by the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) on May 12, 2016, for ten HFO-based power plants of 100±15 MW each. Of the ten, only two projects – Shantahar and Bagerhat – were not awarded.
When contacted, Energy Adviser Fouzul Kabir Khan told The New Nation on Saturday, “The matter will be investigated thoroughly. I can say something over the issue after getting detail official information about the projects.”
The Adviser said also said he is eager to examine the previous developments of the two projects.
The consortium of XCEL Infrastructure Ltd. and Energis Power Corporation Ltd. submitted bids for these two locations and was officially declared the lowest evaluated responsive bidder based on BPDB’s technical and financial assessments.
These recommendations were endorsed by the BPDB board and the then Secretary of the Power Division, who confirmed the consortium’s full compliance with procurement laws.
Xcel/Energis Consortium was not the lowest qualified bidder for the Shantahar and Bagerhat projects, its bids were among the lowest overall among the 10 locations.
However, in a move critics say was politically engineered, the proposals were never forwarded to the Cabinet Committee on Government Purchase (CCGP), as required by Rule 36(3) of the Public Procurement Rules.
The consortium alleges this was part of a broader pattern of political victimization, pointing to the identity of one of its principals, Javed Hosein – son of Barrister Mainul Hosein, a former adviser to the Caretaker Government and a vocal critic of the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
The consortium states that legal and constitutional grounds for challenging government’s decision are as follow:
1. Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law. Selective exclusion of our compliant bids contradicts this guarantee.
2. Article 31 mandates that executive action must be fair and non-arbitrary.
3. Article 102(2)(a)(ii) empowers the Honorable High Court to compel public authorities to perform their legal duties.
4. The Public Procurement Act 2006 and Public Procurement Rules 2008 require transparent and reasoned decision-making in procurement processes. No such reasoning was provided to justify the rejection of our projects.
What sets this case apart is that it emerged from an open, international tender – in stark contrast to the majority of power contracts awarded during the Awami League regime, many of which were executed under the Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provision) Act, 2010, a law that exempts projects from competitive bidding.
According to public records, 41 IPP projects with a combined capacity of 6,308?MW were awarded under this Act during the Awami League’s tenure – all without tenders.
Many of these projects were handed to politically connected, newly formed business groups, often at tariffs 40-60% higher than competitively procured rates. These projects continue to operate today, drawing billions of dollars in capacity payments guaranteed by long-term contracts.
Two of those projects – Confidence Power Bogura Unit 2 (113 MW) and Orion Power Rupsha (105 MW) – were awarded near the rejected Shantahar and Bagerhat sites.
Both were awarded after the disqualification of the consortium, without any bidding, and under far more generous tariff structures.
“This is not just a question of misjudged planning,” said a former BPDB official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is about systematically excluding merit-based bids to serve a network of politically connected players.”
The consortium filed multiple writ petitions, resulting in High Court orders in 2018 and 2019 directing the Ministry of Power to process the proposals per the law.
But instead of compliance, BPDB issued a letter in December 2019 claiming there was “no requirement” for power plants in the areas – despite earlier feasibility studies that deemed the sites viable. The same justification was repeated in a letter from the Ministry on May 20, 2025.
Critics argue that the current administration’s endorsement of this discredited rationale undermines its credibility as a reform-minded government and raises uncomfortable questions about continuity of cronyism across regimes.
In total, the consortium claims to have incurred TK. 97.9 crore in bid preparation costs and lost over Tk. 329 crore in projected profits from capacity payments over the planned 15-year contract period.
The issue is reportedly heading back to court, where legal observers say it could set an important precedent for procurement transparency, accountability, and reparative justice.
Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to shoulder the financial burden of higher-cost, no-bid contracts awarded to politically protected oligarchs, as competitive bids from qualified firms remain ignored.
“Justice in this case is not just about awarding one or two projects,” said a Dhaka-based constitutional lawyer. “It’s about ending a culture of impunity that has defined power sector procurement for over a decade.”
