Bombay HC Quashes Latur City Municipal Corporation E-Tender Notice For Arbitrary Quotation Of Price
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside a request for proposal by Tender Notice issued by Latur City Municipal Corporation for selection of operator for collection, transportation and processing of Municipal Solid Waste in Latur City Municipal Corporation on the grounds of arbitrary quotation of the price.
The bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar observed, “As aforesaid and at the cost of repetition, the extension of the bid opening is arbitrary. When there was single bid received, the Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018 ought to have been followed and basically, since beginning when no efforts were taken to fix the price even approximately, the authorities were not justified in going for the tender and, therefore, interference is required.”
Advocate D.P. Palodkar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate S.P. Urgunde appeared for Respondent.
It was submitted that the Petitioner, Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, a public charitable trust is a registered Society and it is engaged in various social activities of Rag Pickers Community and their welfare and is also engaged in the Solid Waste Management, processing, disposal and value addition which are also helpful for the livelihood of the Rag Pickers and their families. The Petitioner entered into an agreement with the Municipal Commissioner, Latur City Municipal Corporation for collecting waste and its disposal for 5 years, which was later extended,
The Court stated that as regards inviting bids is concerned, it would be giving competition to the eligible persons and with the competitive price, the Municipal Corporation may gain. Therefore, the Court refused to consider the eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender as according to the Court the authority inviting the tender had to decide the eligibility to whom they should invite.
The Court noted the Government Resolution dated September 27, 2018, issued by the Public Works Department rule under which prescribed procedure regarding processing Single Tender whose applicability was pleaded by the petitioner to the tenders of the Municipal Corporation and which was not refused by the respondent, “If that is applicable to respondent Nos.2 and 3, then without opening Envelope No.1 of single bidder and also when no changes were proposed in the draft of the tender paper, then re-invitation ought to have been given,” Court stated.
The Court further noted that no documentary proof was produced along with the affidavit-in-reply as to what point or reason, decision was taken to extend the bid time without following the Government Resolution.
The Court further stated no justification as to on what basis the said amount of Rs.4 Crores was arrived at was given by respondent and according to the Court this showed the arbitrariness on the part of respondents and the approach with which they have undertaken the E-tender process.
The Court relied on the decision in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others, [(2000) 5 SCC 287], where the SC observed, “broadly stated, the Courts would not interfere with the matter of administrative action or changes made therein, unless the Government’s action is arbitrary or discriminatory or the policy adopted has no nexus with the object it seeks to achieve or is mala fide”.
The Court further took into consideration that respondents issued show cause notices to the petitioner concerning its work. It also looked at the photographs showing pathetic situation in respect of lifting of garbage. The Court stated, “Throwing waste/garbage by general public on the road is certainly a menace. Unless there is public awareness on the point and public participation, the situation will not improve, however, when institutions/persons like petitioner are undertaking the contracts of collecting waste and that too with aim that has been stated in the petition, then it is expected that the petitioner should deliver and work as expected with no or less complaints.”
The Court further stated that as the tender was open to the public therefore, the respondent cannot stop the petitioner from participating in the Tender.
The Court quashed and set aside the E-Tender Notice and directed the respondents to issue fresh tender.
Finally, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:7037-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. D.P. Palodkar
Respondent: Government Pleader A.B. Girase, Adv. S.P. Urgunde
