Bombay High Court
Stc Etc Mae Throuth Its Jv Partners vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater … on 29 July, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:12143-DB
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21228 OF 2025
M/s. Veer Infra through their sole
proprietor Mr. Gaurav Jain ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21353 OF 2025
STC-ETC-MAE (JV) ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents
______________
Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandar Soman,
Ms. Pooja Batra, Mr. Suraj Iyer, Mr. Mani Thevar and Mr. Atharva Utekar i/b.
M/s. Ganesh and Co. for the Petitioner in WPL/21228/2025.
Mr. Vishal Pattabiraman with Mr. Meet Pandya and Mr. Sachin Patil i/b.
Mr. Nitesh Agarwal for the Petitioner in WPL/21353/2025.
Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pralhad Paranjape &
Ms. Oorja Dhond i/b. Ms. Komal R. Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 -
MCGM in both the Petitions.
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh with Mr. Akshay B. Udeshi i/b. M/s. AU Legal,
for Respondent No.4 in both the Petitions.
Mr. Vishal Thadani, Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent No.5-
State in WPL/21228/2025.
Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP for Respondent No.5-State in WPL/21353/2025.
______________
Page No. 1 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Reserved on : 23 July 2025.
Judgment Pronounced on : 29 July 2025.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1) These two Petitions are filed challenging the tender
process initiated by Respondent-Municipal Corporation for collection
and transportation of Municipal Solid Waste in its Wards. Petitioners
have challenged the tender conditions, particularly Corrigendum-III
dated 1 July 2025 and have sought direction for issuance of fresh
tender notice by prescribing the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the
earlier tender floated for the years 2018-2025.
2) Brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the Petitions are
that :-
Petitioners are engaged in the business of collection and transportation
of solid waste. Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.21228 of 2025 is a
proprietary firm engaged in the business of collection and
transportation of solid waste and is undertaking various projects with
the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), last project
being in the years 2018-2025. Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.21353 of
2025 is a Joint Venture of M/s. Enamdar Transport Co., M/s. Siddiqui
Transport Co. and M/s. Silky Enterprises. The JV claims to have
undertaken and completed the work of solid waste disposal for
MCGM during the year 2007-2012 and 2012-2017 and are also
currently carrying out work for the years 2018-2025.
Page No. 2 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
3) MCGM floated a tender notice on 14 May 2025 for
awarding the work of collection and transportation of municipal solid
waste in its wards to transfer stations and final disposal sites for a
period of seven years from 2025 to 2032. A pre-bid meeting was held
on 29 May 2025. Both the Petitioners made representations
complaining about stipulation of eligibility conditions in the tender
notice. MCGM issued Corrigendum No.I on 10 June 2025 extending
bid submission date to 26 June 2025 and bid-opening date to
1 July 2025. Thereafter Corrigendum No.II dated 25 June 2025 was
issued extending bid submission date to 8 July 2025 and bid opening
on 11 July 2025. Thereafter Corrigendum No.III was issued on
1 July 2025 by which some of the tender conditions were modified.
According to the Petitioners Corrigendum No.III amounts to
wholesome modification of the tender conditions. Petitioners have
accordingly filed the present petition challenging the original tender
document as well as Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025.
4) By order dated 16 July 2025, Petitioners were granted
liberty to submit their bids without prejudice to the contentions raised
in the petitions. Accordingly, Petitioners have submitted their bids in
pursuance of the impugned tender process.
5) Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 21228 of 2025 would submit that
the tender conditions have been arbitrarily stipulated with a view to
eliminate fair competition. That Corrigendum-III issued on 1 July 2025
completely alters the original tender conditions and such alteration is
done for the purpose of disqualifying most of the bidders. That the
newly introduced terms in the Corrigendum have no rational nexus
Page No. 3 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
with the object of the tender. That the Corrigendum is issued in utter
abuse of power. That past experience of “door to door collection” has
been added for restricting the competition. That experience of door-to-
door collection, storage, segregation, transportation and disposal of
municipal solid waste for 7 years is impossible of being fulfilled by any
contractor from Mumbai as similar tender of the requisite magnitude
has never been floated during past seven years in Mumbai City. That
the SLF Waste processing plants are installed in Mumbai only five
years back, making it impossible for any bidder from Mumbai to fulfill
the prescribed eligibility criteria. The second grievance raised by
Dr. Tulzapurkar is with regard to the marking system introduced by
the Municipal Corporation for evaluating the bids. He would submit
that under the modified marking system introduced vide
Corrigendum-III, 45 marks plus 5 marks (totaling 50 marks) are
reserved for subjective analysis, thereby leaving room for arbitrariness
in selecting the favourite bidders by rejecting other eligible bidders.
That prescription of 45 marks for work plan and 5 marks for
presentation has no nexus for past experience/performance and are
clearly arbitrary. That since minimum marks prescribed is 70, wide
discretion is invested in the tendering authority to ensure that
unwanted bidders can be thrown out by awarding lesser marks against
the attributes of work plan and presentation.
6) The third contention of Dr. Tulzapurkar is that the
impugned tender process has restricted Joint Venture bidders to
participate against only one group as against permissibility for
individual bidders to bid for multiple groups. That such stipulation is
arbitrary and aimed that curtailing the competition. Dr. Tulzapurkar
would therefore submit that the manner in which the impugned
Page No. 4 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
tender process is sought to be implemented is grossly arbitrary, and
therefore, the entire tender process deserves to be set aside, with a
direction to the Municipal Corporation to implement a fresh tender
process by stipulating eligibility criteria prescribed in the earlier
tenders.
7) Mr. Pattabiraman, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 21353 of 2025 would adopt the
submissions of Dr. Tulzapurkar. Additionally, he would submit that
his client fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed in the original tender
document. He would submit that the Petitioner is aggrieved by
prescription of eligibility criteria relating to technical capacity,
financial capacity and net worth. That the Petitioner is also aggrieved
by the re-grouping of wards into 8 groups, as against 14 groups in
respect of contract for 2018 to 2025. That the turnover value under the
impugned tender has been deliberately escalated with a view to
eliminate competition. That the Petitioner is also aggrieved by
requirement of lead member having technical capacity of 50%. That
though previous tenders were only for 5 years, past experience of 7
years is now prescribed with a view to curtail competition. That
prescription of a minimum 70% marks in scrutiny of tenders is again
aimed at curtailing the competition. He would therefore submit that
the impugned tender process deserves to be set aside.
8) The petitions are opposed by Mr. Sakhardande, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent-MCGM. He would submit
that the tender conditions are drafted by the tendering authority
keeping in mind the fact that comprehensive contracts are now sought
to be awarded to manage solid waste right from the stage of door-to-
Page No. 5 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
door collection till transportation, transfer and final disposal sites.
That the work is being awarded on a turnkey basis, and accordingly,
the tender conditions have been formulated. He would clarify that the
Municipal Corporation has not prescribed work experience of seven
years, but merely expects the bidders to have executed works of
stipulated value at any time during the past seven years. So far as the
grievance of the Petitioners about JV bidders being restricted to bid for
only one group is concerned, he would submit, on instructions, that
the said restriction have been removed by way of Corrigendum-III
dated 1 July 2025, under which a bidder can bid against any number of
groups. That tender conditions have not been formulated with an
objective of including/excluding of any particular bidder, but the same
are formulated keeping in mind the peculiar requirements of Mumbai
City as well as the scope of tendered work. That the tender conditions
have nexus with the objectives that are sought to be achieved and that
there is no element of arbitrariness or irrationality in the
implementation of tender process. He would rely upon judgment of
this Court in Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Limited Versus.
State of Maharashtra and Others1. On above submissions,
Mr. Sakhardande prays for dismissal of the petitions.
9) We have also heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel
appearing for Municipal Transport Contractor Association who would
support the petitions by adopting the submissions canvassed by
Dr. Tulzapurkar and Mr. Pattabiraman.
10) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our
consideration.
1
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 282
Page No. 6 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
11) In the present petitions, the Petitioners have questioned
the wisdom of the tendering authority in stipulating the tender
conditions in the original tender document, as modified vide
Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025. Before examining the challenge
raised by the Petitioners to the tender conditions, it would be
necessary to consider the contours of jurisdiction of Courts in
interfering with tender process. In Tata Cellular Versus. Union of
India2, the Apex Court has summarized the principles, after
considering various judgments delivered in the past, in paragraph 94
of the judgment as under :-
“94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative
action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the
manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative
decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be
substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which
itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny
because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally
speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is
reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often
than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a
fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative
body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative
sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application
of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts
pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by
bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the
administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.
Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since
they commend to us as the correct principles.
2
(1994) 6 SCC 651
Page No. 7 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
12) In Afcons Infrastructure Limited Versus. Nagpur Metro
Rail Corporation Ltd. and another3, the Apex Court has held that the
owner or employer of a project, being the author of the tender
document, is the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and to interpret its conditions. It is held in paragraph 15
as under :-
“15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having
authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and
appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The
constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of
the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the
understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the
tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project
may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable
to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering
with the interpretation given.”
13) In Silppi Constructions Contractors Versus. Union of
India and another4, the Apex Court has held that the authority floating
the tender is the best judge of its requirements, and therefore, the
Court’s interference should be minimal. It is held in paragraph 20 as
under :-
“20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is
the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public
interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the
State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the
experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court
does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court
must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its
requirements and, therefore, the court’s interference should be minimal.
The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the
tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be
interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of
the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this
approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.”
3
(2016) 16 SCC 818
4
(2020) 16 SCC 489
Page No. 8 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
14) In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Versus. State of
Karnataka and others5, the Apex Court has once again summarized
the principles governing the scope of judicial review in tender matters.
It has held in paragraph 23 as under :-
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and
non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play.
These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the
State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any
ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it
would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the
executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except
for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or
unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy
standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in
those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and
awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State
authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be
malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not
warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down
to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to
successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public
interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very
restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on
business with the Government.”
15) In Uflex Limited Versus. Government of Tamil Nadu and
others6, the above principles have been reiterated. In judgment
authored by one of us (the Chief Justice) in Mahendra Realtors and
Infrastructure Limited (supra), the scope of interference by this Court
in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
5
(2012) 8 SCC 216
6
(2022) 1 SCC 165
Page No. 9 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
have been delineated by making reference to various judgments of the
Apex Court. This Court has held in paragraph 17 to 20 as under :-
“17. The scope of interference of this Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is delineated by catena of decisions
of the Supreme Court. It is well settled in law that discretion to grant
largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licence and so on must
be structured by rational, relevant and non-discretionary standard or
norms. If the Government departs from such standard or norms, its action
would be liable to be struck down unless the Government can establish
that departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principles
which in itself was not irrational, irrelevant, unreasonable or
discriminatory (see : Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India).
18. The principles regarding award of contract were reiterated by the
Supreme Court in Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and it
was held that Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of
tender and the courts cannot strike down the terms of tender prescribed
by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender
would have been fairer, wiser or more logical. The courts can interfere only
if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice.
In Shimnit Utsch India (P) Ltd. v. W.B. Transport Infrastructure Development
Corpn. Ltd., the Supreme Court, while taking note of the law laid down
in Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India, reiterated that the State
Government has right to get the right and most competent person and in
the matter of formulating conditions of tender documents, unless the
action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and is a misuse of
statutory powers, the tender conditions are unassailable.
19. In Siemens Aktiengeseleischaft & Siemens Ltd. v. DMRC, it was held that
the tenders floated by the Government are amenable to judicial review
only in order to prevent arbitrariness and favouritism and protect the
financial interest of the State and public interest. Thus, the scope of judicial
review is confined as to whether there was any illegality, irrationality or
procedural impropriety committed by the decision-making authority. It
has further been held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the
soundness of the decision made by the competent authority and the court
can only examine whether the decision-making process is fair, reasonable,
transparent and bona fide with no perceptible injury to public interest.
In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
has held that minimal interference is called for by courts in exercise of
judicial review of a decision taken by the technical experts after due
deliberations inasmuch as the courts are not well equipped to fathom into
such domain which is left to the discretion of the executive. It has further
been held that primary and secondary purpose of review is to ensure that
administrative bodies act in efficient, transparent, fair, unbiased manner
and keep in forefront public interest. Similar view has been takenPage No. 10 of 20
29 July 2025::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docxin TANGEDCO Ltd. v. CSEPDI-Trishe Consortium and Sam Built Well (P)
Ltd. v. Deepak Builders.
20. It is equally well-settled legal preposition that the author of the
document is the best person to understand and appreciate the
requirements contained in the tender document (see : Caretel Infotech Ltd.
case). It is also equally well-settled in law that the court cannot sit over any
judgment on what should be the eligibility criteria in tender notice (see
: Uflex Ltd. case).”
16) Keeping in mind the principles discussed above, we now
advert to the challenge raised by the Petitioners in the present
petitions.
17) The first ground raised by the Petitioners to the tender
conditions is prescription of experience of seven years in the original
tender document. Petitioners believe that Clause A.1.1 in Section 2
prescribes that the bidders must have 7 years of work experience of
having completed similar works. Tender Condition A.1.1 in Section 2
reads thus :-
“A. 1.1 Technical Capacity
The bidder(s) in their own name should have satisfactorily executed the
work of similar nature or currently executing the work of similar nature as
described in para 1.3 on Pg. No. 12 & 31 of this document in BMC / Semi
Govt. / Govt. & Public Sector Organizations during last seven (7) years
ending last day of month previous to the one in which bids are invited as a
prime Contractor. The bidder shall have the work experience of an amount
not less than the amount indicated against respective group in the table
below.
Group Ward Three similar Two similar One similar
No. completed / completed / completed /
ongoing works ongoing works ongoing works
(value of (value of (value of
completed part of completed part of completed part of
ongoing work) ongoing work) ongoing work)
each of value not works each of works each of
less than amount value not less than value not less
as mentioned amount as than amount as
below (Cr.) mentioned below mentioned below
(Cr.) (Cr.)
Page No. 11 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
1 A, B, C 101.81 127.27 203.62
&D
2 E, FS & 107.42 134.27 214.84
FN
3 GS & 102.45 128.07 204.91
GN
4 HE & 87.78 109.72 175.55
HW
5 KE & 119.81 OR 149.77 OR 239.63
KW
6 PE, PS 109.16 136.45 218.32
& PN
7 RS, RC 107.51 134.39 215.02
& RN
8 N, S & 97.16 121.46 194.33
T
The value of executed works shall be brought to current costing level by
enhancing the actual value of work at compound rate of 10% per annum;
calculated from the date of completion to last date of receipt of
applications for tenders. However, in case of ongoing works no
enhancement in the value of completed part of the work will be made.”
18) In our view, the above interpretation of tender condition
A.1.1 by the Petitioners is totally misplaced. Plain reading of the above
tender condition would indicate that the requisite eligibility criteria
pertain to the satisfactory execution of works of a similar nature
during last seven years. This would imply that the bidders could either
possess experience of having completed three similar works of
specified value or two similar works of specified value or one work of
specified value during past seven years. The period of 7 years is
specified with a view to limit the years during which the experience
can be considered. To illustrate, a bidder competing for Group-1,
comprising of wards A, B, C and D, must possess experience of having
completed: three similar works of value not less than Rs. 101.81 Crores
or two similar works of value not less than 127.27 Crores or one similar
work of value not less than 203.62 Crores. It is not necessary that the
prescribed work experience must continue for the period of seven
Page No. 12 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
years. What needs to be possessed is experience of having completed
the prescribed number of works during seven years. Thus, a given
bidder may have completed one work of value of 203.62 Crores during
2020 to 2025 and would be eligible to bid in the tender process. It is not
necessary that the work performed by such bidder must extend for a
period of seven years. This position is clarified in the Affidavit in
Reply filed by Respondent-Municipal Corporation in which it is
pleaded in paragraph 3.19 as under :-
“The requirement of Work Experience in the last seven years is a part of
the Standard Bid Document of the answering Respondents and is also a
part of other Standard Operating Procedures. Thus, it cannot be said that
the said condition is arbitrary and is meant to oust the Petitioner.”
(emphasis and underlining added)
19) Thus, the work experience could be completed in any of
the seven years before floating of the tenders. It appears that the
similar experience condition was also stipulated in previous tender in
which Petitioners were awarded contracts. The Municipal Corporation
has further clarified in paragraph 3.19 as under :-
“Infact the tender during 2018-2025 also had the condition of last seven
years in the eligibility criteria.”
Petitioners therefore cannot selectively seek to challenge the experience
condition in the impugned tender process for 2025-32.
20) Thus, the first ground of challenge to the impugned
tender process is clearly based on an improper reading of the tender
condition. Therefore, the contention that the SLF Waste processing
Page No. 13 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
plants are installed in Mumbai in the year 2020 and, that therefore, it is
impossible to possess experience of seven years is totally misplaced.
21) So far as the objection raised by the Petitioners about
marking system is concerned, it must be observed that the Petitioner in
Writ Petition (L) No. 21228 of 2025 apparently does not possess the
prescribed work experience/eligibility criteria and therefore the
grievance sought to be raised by it about marking system is academic.
However, it is contended that the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.
21353 of 2025 fulfills the eligibility criteria and is therefore entitled to
question the marking system introduced in the impugned tender
process. We accordingly proceed to examine the said challenge. The
marking system is prescribed for evaluation of bids in Section 10 of the
tender document. Evaluation matrix has been prescribed under which
the bids are to be subjected to marking system with a maximum 100
marks. It is stipulated that only bidders securing minimum 70 marks
would be subjected to further tender process while opening of price
packets. This would mean that bidders securing less than 70 marks
would not be entitled to have their price packets open. The marking
system postulates award of marks for attributes of (i) experience of
door to door and secondary collection in any one city having
population of less than 10 Lakhs, (ii) actual volume MSW collected,
(iii) work plan based on bidder’s survey and (iv) presentation of
proposal. Some modifications are effected in the marking system in
Corrigendum-III. While the heads of marks have remained unchanged,
but the system of distribution marks has undergone some change. It
would be apposite to reproduce the marking system prescribed in the
Corrigendum-III, which reads thus :-
Page No. 14 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docxSr. Criteria Score of Marks
No.
1 Experience of the similar works as mentioned in the technical eligibility
criteria in any on city having population not less than 10 Lacs during last
07 Years. (The project shall be in operation for at least 03 Years.)The population as per last census will be considered for the area for which
the contract is in force. (e.g. if the contract is awarded for one ward in
Mumbai, then the population of that ward will only be considered & not
the entire population of Mumbai.) (Maximum Marks – 25)
Single Contract 15
2 Contracts 20
More than 2 Contracts 25
2 Actual MSW collected in the contracts of all similar works in last 03 years.
(Maximum Marks-25)
(Bidder has to provide such certificates from the engineer of the respective
contract.)
Less than 250 TPD 10
From 251 to 500 TPD 15
From 501 to 750 TPD 20
Above 751 TPD 25
3 Work plan based on the bidder’s Survey – Maximum Marks – 45
4 Presentation for the Proposal – (Maximum Marks 5 marks)
1. Understanding level demonstrated for the scope of work
2. Commitment towards the delivery of the required work parameters.
3. Quality of response against the queries raised by the evaluation
committee.
22) Criteria for award of marks have also been prescribed in
the Corrigendum as under :-
Sr. Criteria Score of Marks
No.
1 Understanding of the waste generation pattern 3
& waste composition characteristics
2 Understanding of the project deliverables, 3
bidder's strategy and vision about the
execution of the project including pain area.
Page No. 15 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
3 Details of the vehicles proposed for the work 2
based on their type & capacity.
4 Plan for parking of vehicles in PPL of BMC or 4
at any other dedicated parking plots.
5 Experience of using environment friendly vehicles in the executed /
currently executing works of similar nature as defined in the eligibility
criteria (Maximum 03 Marks)
Less than 50 Nos. of vehicles 1
in between 51 to 100 vehicles 2
Above 100 vehicles 3
6 Design of the litter bins proposed to be 4
installed.
7 Plan for installation, upkeep and maintenance 3
of the litter bins / street corner bins.
8 Plan for replacement of damaged community 3
bins, their maintenance and upkeep,
elimination of these spots and diverting this
waste in to doorstep collection scheme.
9 Plan to eliminate open dumps in one year’s 3
time from the start of contract and divert this
waste in to doorstep collection scheme.
10 Plan to achieve 100% doorstep collection 4
11 Plan for carrying out IEC Activities. 4
12 Plan for setting up of complaint redressal 4
system with toll free number.
13 Workforce (Manpower) Deployment on 5
every type of vehicles
Plan for management of manpower as
per prevalent labour laws & other
welfare activities.
23) Petitioners submit that introduction of marking system
for evaluation of the bids is arbitrary and introduced to ensure ouster
of the eligible bidders and for curtailing the competition.
24) We find the objection raised by the Petitioners to be
totally baseless. The first two attributes postulate award of marks
depending on execution of number of contracts during past seven
Page No. 16 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
years. The second attribute is for award of marks for volume of MSW
handled by the contractor during experience period. Both attributes
carry maximum of 50 marks. In the original tender document, the first
two attributes together carried only 40 marks, which has been now
been increased to 50 marks. There is reduction in maximum marks
against the attribute of work plan from 55 to 45 marks. It is contended
that award of 45 marks to an attribute like work plan is totally
arbitrary. We are unable to agree. The contractors are supposed to
execute the work of handling of municipal solid waste from the stage
of door-to-door collection till its transportation to processing/disposal
facility. The brief scope of work described in the Section 7 of tender
document is as under :-
“The scope of work in this Tender Document involves following brief aspects.
(Please note that this is just a brief scope of work. The detailed scope of work is
explained in Section-10 (Specifications) of this document
1. Collection and transportation of MSW (Dry & Wet Waste) including materials
removed from slums in Wards for the period of seven years as per table given
below. (Collection and transportation of MSW means collection of solid waste deposited
at waste collection spots or bins for onward transportation of the waste to the processing or
disposal facility)
Group Ward
Group 1 A, B, C & D
Group 2 E, FS & FN
Group 3 GS & GN
Group 4 HE & HW
Group 5 KE & KW
Group 6 PE, PS & PN
Group 7 RS, RC & RN
Group 8 N, S & T
2. Loading of waste into vehicles by mechanically or by any other means.
3. Carry out the whole process in accordance with the Solid Waste Management
Rules-2016 & its revisions thereafter.
Page No. 17 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
4. Carry out awareness campaigns and IEC activities to improve and maintain
door to door collection & to increase segregation of waste at source.
5. Eliminate the collection spots on the roads by carrying out awareness
campaigns & channelize the waste in the system of door step collections.
6. Eliminate open dumping spots on roads and public places and channelize this
waste in to the stream of Doorstep Collection system within one year of the start
of the contract.
7. Establish & maintain a complaint management system for waste related
complaints in the area by utilising a toll-free number and a call centre.
8. Provide and maintain litter bins on the roads having footpaths handling
directly into the collection vehicles for the entire and clear the waste from these
bins without any second contract period.
9. Maintain the existing community collection bins and replace the damaged
community collection bins in the ward. Provide Bin Attendants in first shift to
deter the citizens from throwing the garbage around the bins and deposit the
waste on the ground back into the bins.
Successful bidder should eliminate community collection bins and give bin
attendance in the period of four years as per belowSr. No. Year Bins to be attended
1 Year 1 100%
2 Year 2 75% (25% bins should be eliminated)
3 Year 3 50% (50% bins should be eliminated)
4 Year 4 25% (75% bins should be eliminated)
5 Year 5 0% (100% bins should be eliminated)
10. Collection of Dry Waste in separate vehicles and delivering it to Dry Waste
Collection Centres in the ward.
11. Collection & Transportation of Construction & Demolition Waste,
Horticultural Waste, Bio Medical Waste & Hazardous Waste is out of scope of this
contract.”
25) The extent of scope of work in respect of each group can be
gathered by the illustrative number of litter bins indicated in Annexure-I
to the tender document as under :-
Collection & transportation of Municipal Solid Waste in wards of
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to Transfer Stations & final Disposal
Sites
Bidder’s offer of nos. & type of litter bins to be installed and maintainedPage No. 18 of 20
29 July 2025::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docxGroup Name of Wards Indicative Nos. of Litter Nos. of Litter Bins to
No. Bins to be installed be installed by the
bidder
1 A, B, C, D 2750
2 E, FS, FN 2817
3 GS, GN 1845
4 HE, HW 2223
5 KE, KW 3244
6 PS, PN, PE 2071
7 RS, RC, RN 4550
8 N, S, T 4166
26) Mr. Sakhardande has submitted that the Municipal
Corporation is going for award of such turnkey contract for the first
time and, therefore, wants to be careful in evaluating the background,
capacity and performance of each bidder. It is seen that 45 marks are
awarded for attribute of “Work Plan based on Bidder’s Survey”. The
bidder is thus expected to visit the wards in the group, for which the
bid is submitted, make a detailed study of the geographical area and
then present the work plan to the Municipal Corporation. Based on the
plan so presented by the bidder, the Municipal Corporation would
award marks against the third attribute of work plan. The criteria for
award of marks has also been prescribed in the tender document. It,
therefore, cannot be contended that there is any element of
arbitrariness in the marking system prescribed by the tendering
authority for evaluating the bids.
27) In our view, Municipal Corporation is the best judge to
understand its requirements and has accordingly formulated the
tender conditions. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over
the wisdom of the tendering authority in adopting a particular
methodology for evaluating the bids. The evaluation matrix prescribed
Page No. 19 of 20
29 July 2025
::: Uploaded on – 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::
Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx
in the tender document seems to have nexus with the objective sought
to be achieved. We, therefore, do not find any valid reason to interfere
with the marking system introduced for evaluation of the bids.
28) The last objection highlighted is about the restriction put
on JV bidders in bidding for more than one group. However, in
Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025, the relevant condition has been
modified, which reads thus :-
“A bidder can bid to any nos. of groups provided the bidder fulfills the
criteria of the amount mentioned against the turnover & work experience
individually for those groups. However, the bidder shall fulfill the
requirement of the amount of bid capacity collectively for all the nos. of
groups the bidder is going to bid for.”
29) Thus, any bidder can bid for any number of groups
subject to fulfillment of criteria prescribed in the tender document.
After taking instructions, Mr. Sakhardande has clarified that there is
no restriction on JV bidders in bidding for multiple groups. Therefore,
objection in this regard is also baseless. Though this objection does not
relate to Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 21228 of 2025, it has also
raised this ground indicating desperate attempt to somehow derail the
tender process.
30) Considering over all conspectus of the case, we are of the
view that Petitioners have failed to make out an element of
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity in the impugned tender
process. There is no warrant for interference in the impugned tender
process. Petitions must fail. They are accordingly dismissed.
Digitally
signed by [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date: Page No. 20 of 20
2025.07.29 29 July 2025
18:04:22
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2025 22:23:44 :::