Menace Of Garbage On Roads Will Not Go Away Without Public Awareness & Participation: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently remarked the menace of garbage on roads will not improve unless there is public awareness and participation. It was dealing with a petition against a tender notice issued by the Latur City Municipal Corporation (LCMC) for the selection of an operator for the collection, transportation, and processing of municipal solid waste.“Even the photographs those have...
The Bombay High Court recently remarked the menace of garbage on roads will not improve unless there is public awareness and participation. It was dealing with a petition against a tender notice issued by the Latur City Municipal Corporation (LCMC) for the selection of an operator for the collection, transportation, and processing of municipal solid waste.
“Even the photographs those have been shown shows pathetic situation in respect of lifting of garbage. 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…” a division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar remarked.
The court quashed the E-tender, finding various irregularities in the tender process. It directed LCMC to issue a fresh tender notice in accordance with existing laws and government resolutions.
The writ petition was filed by Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, a public charitable trust engaged in solid waste management. The petitioner had an existing agreement with the LCMC, which was extended until September 12, 2024. The LCMC floated a new tender notice for the next 5 years. The petitioner intended to participate in the tender but couldn't as it did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the court challenging the process on the following grounds –
- The deadline of bid submission expired on February 28, 2024, up to 2.00 pm, however, the extension was granted to March 5, 2024.
- The eligibility criteria were arbitrary and high-handed.
- LCMC did not give the amount of work for which the tender has been issued, but still on an arbitrary basis charged a security deposit and bank guarantee.
- The reason for the extension of the deadline, that there was only single bidder who was qualified, is not justified.
The petitioner argued that as per the Government Resolution dated September 27, 2018, issued by the PWD, after LCMC realized that there is only one bid, it should have invited a fresh tender.
LCMC claimed that the petitioner society's prayers should be rejected as it failed to perform its duty to collect the solid waste, and more than 30 notices in 2023 were issued to it for the same. Further, there were several complaints of the citizens as well as political leaders against the petitioner society LCMC claimed.
It submitted that the bank guarantee in the E-tender was kept at 20% of the tender amount, but as the price of the work was not fixed, the bank guarantee was kept at Rs. 4 Crores instead of 20%. It further claimed that the reason for extending the deadline is the code of conduct of the upcoming Lok Sabha Election and the current garbage issue in Latur city.
The court didn't go into the issue of eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender, stating that the authority inviting tender has to decide the eligibility.
The court, however, held that while persons undertaking the contracts of collecting waste are expected to deliver and work as expected with no or fewer complaints, the petitioner could not be barred from the tender process due to complaints about its past performance.
“But on that point respondent Nos.2 and 3 (LCMC) cannot estop the petitioner from participating in the tender. The tender was open for public i.e. to the specific persons as per the eligibility and, therefore, it is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to accept the tender document and, thereafter to scrutinize the same. A fair play is certainly expected.”
The court noted the lack of justification for the extension of the deadline and questioned why the guidelines outlined in the Government Resolution dated September 27, 2018, were not followed. No documentary evidence was provided to support the decision to extend the bid time, the court said.
The court criticized the adjustment of the bank guarantee from 20% tender value to Rs. 4 Crores. “it can be seen from the affidavit-in-reply that the price of the tender is not fixed. This is more dangerous. At-least the person who is inviting tender should know as well as should quote the price of the work, then only appropriate bidders would come…In the affidavit-in-reply there is absolutely no justification as to on what basis the said amount of Rs.4 Crores was arrived at. This shows the arbitrariness…”
LCMC argued against re-tendering, citing potential losses to the public exchequer. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that it should have considered this aspect before initiating the tender process. They should have followed the Government Resolution dated September 27, 2018 when there was only a single bid received, the court observed.
Thus, the court allowed the writ petition.
Advocate DP Palodkar represented the petitioner.
Government Pleader AB Girase represented the State of Maharashtra.
Advocate SP Urgunde represented the Latur City Municipal Corporation.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 2717 of 2024
Case Title – Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.