The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by successful MSW contractors seeking to quash a fresh tender and compel issuance of LOA. The court held that petitioners failed to extend bid validity beyond the RFP period, delayed unwarrantedly in seeking review, and did not request extension after receiving LOA.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.1128 OF 2021 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.162 OF 2021(GM-TEN)
IN W.P. No.1128/2021
BETWEEN :
BANGALORE-560 076
2
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.10, 32ND MAIN 5TH CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY BMT 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 068
3
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
MADIWALA
BANGALORE-560 068 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SHRI. A. MAHAMAD TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
(BY SHRI. M. VINOD KUMAR AGA FOR R1; SHRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 21.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-5 AT ANNEXURE-N AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO ISSUE FRESH LOA BY
4
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
GRANTING 30 DAYS TIME FOR SUBMITTING PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND WORK ORDERS TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.68 AND 72, PETITIONER NO.2 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.64, PETITIONER NO.3 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.172, PETITIONER NO.4 IN RESPECT WARD NO.65 AND 152, PETITIONER NO.5 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.98, PETITIONER NO.6 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.84 PETITIONER NO.7 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.66, PETITIONER NO.8 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.76 AND 118 AND PETITIONER NO.9 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.25.
IN W.P. NO.162/2021
BETWEEN :
BANGALORE-560 090 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SHRI. A. MAHAMAD TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
5
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
AND :
BANGALORE-560 002
(BY SHRI. M. VINOD KUMAR AGA FOR R1; SHRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-5 AT ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO ISSUE LOA AND WORK ORDERS TO THE PETITONERS NO.1 IN RESEPCT OF WARD NO.12 AND 13, PETITONER NO.2 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.12 AND 13, PETITONER NO.2 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.71 AND 91 AND PETITONER NO.3 IN RESPECT OF WARD NO.14.
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
6
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are MSW1 contractors. On January 18, 2019, BBMP2 called for tenders for collection and transportation of segregated wet waste etc. Petitioners participated in the tender for different wards of BBMP. In the BBMP website, they were shown as 'L1' bidders against their respective tenders. However, LOA3 were not given to them by the BBMP. Some similarly situated contractors filed writ petitions4 in this Court and the same have been disposed of by the common order dated February 20, 2020. After
disposal of the said writ petitions, BBMP has issued LOA to several contractors excluding the petitioners herein. BBMP has again called for tender vide Notification dated December 21, 2020 (Annexure-N). Hence, this writ petition
1 Municipal Solid Waste
2 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
3 Letters of Acceptance
4 M/s. Ganesh Shankar Environmental Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.38069/2019 and connected cases
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
7
with a prayer inter alia to quash fresh tender Notification and to direct BBMP to issue LOA.
Advocate for petitioners, in substance, submitted that BBMP has issued LOA to the petitioners with only 15 days time to furnish Bank Guarantee and details of vehicles and manpower, where as several similarly situated contractors have been given 30 days. This amounts to discrimination.
BBMP submitted that BBMP has right to accept or reject any bid as per clause 2.6.1 of RFP5 . Further, as per clause 2.17, the validity of the bid is for 180 days and stood expired on July 17, 2019. Petitioners have not extended the period of their bid. However, BBMP has given LOA to the petitioners in November 2020.
5 Request for proposal
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
8
called on January 18, 2019. As per Clause 2.17 of RFP, the bid shall be valid for 180 days and can be extended by mutual consent. It is also not in dispute that some of the contractors had approached this Court in writ petitions mentioned supra, which have been disposed of on February 20, 2020.
they have been working as contractors with the BBMP for several years.
W.P. No.1128/2021 C/W W.P. No.162/2021
9
these writ petitions must fail on more than one count. Firstly, petitioners who have submitted their bids have not extended the period beyond 180 days. Secondly, the RFP was issued in January 2019 and a batch of writ petitions were disposed of in February 2020. Though it is admitted that petitioners did learn about the fact that they were L1, they did not choose to challenge respondent's action for nearly one year from the date of disposal of the writ petitions. Thirdly, petitioners have not sought extension of time after receiving the LOA.
by the City Corporation. It is an important work and has a direct bearing on the health of residents of the city. BBMP has already called for fresh tenders. In the facts and circumstances, petitioners' case does not warrant interference by exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
W.P. No.1128/2021
10
C/W W.P. No.162/2021
9. Resultantly, these petitions fail and they are
accordingly dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash a fresh tender notification and compel the issuance of LOA to petitioners who failed to extend their bi
Whether the discrepancy in time granted for performance security between petitioners and other contractors warrants judicial interference.
Whether the petitioners' delay in challenging the initial disposal of bid validity despite being shown as L1 bidders bars relief.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Ganesh Shankar Environmental Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶78
M/s. Ganesh Shankar Environmental Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.38069/2019 and connected cases
3 provisions across 3 enactments
MR. VINAY KUMAR AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SOUDHA
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HEALTH AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BBMP
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT-1
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court