Bombay High Court
Wgm vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 18 August, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:13887-DB
k 1/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.24549 OF 2025
M/s. WGM
Through its JV Partners & Ors. ....Petitioners
versus
The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate and Mr. Simil Purohit,
Senior Advocate with Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy, Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas,
N. Kotwal and Goerge R. i/b M/s. RJD & Partners, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pralhad
Paranjpe and Ms. Oorja Dhond i/b Ms. Komal R. Punjabi for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3/ MCGM.
Mr. Milind V. More, Additional GP for Respondent No.4/State.
Ms. Tejashree Munot with R. Shrethlakshmi i/b M/s. JJ Associates
for Respondent No.5.
Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Ms. Siddharth
Mehta, Ms. Eram Quraishi and Mr. Siddhartha Puthoor i/b Mehta
& Padamsey for Respondent No.6.
__________
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 18 AUGUST 2025.
Judgment.: (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1. Petitioner has filed the present Petition seeking extension of time to submit its bid by uploading the tender documents in k Page No. 1 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:39 ::: k 2/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc pursuance of the e-tender notice issued by the Respondent- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Petitioner has also sought disqualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and for reopening of the tendering process by inviting fresh bids for award of the work in question.
2. Petitioner is a Joint Venture formed by M/s. Waste Line JV (Lead member), M/s. ME Raaj (Technical Partner) and M/s. Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited (Technical Partner). Petitioner claims to be in the business of solid waste management and disposal for over 40 years. MCGM has issued e-tender notice on 14 May 2025 inviting bids for award of work "Collection and Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste in Wards of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to Transfer Stations and Final Disposal Sites" for the period 2025 to 2032. The area of MCGM has been divided into 8 groups, each group comprising of multiple Municipal Wards. The last date for submission of bids was 11 June 2025. By two corrigenda the last date for submission of bids has been extended to 26 June 2025 and 8 July 2025. Finally, by Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025 the last date for submission of bids was modified to 18 July 2025 upto 16:00 hours. Petitioner claims that it possesses the eligibility criteria stipulated in the tender document and decided to participate in the tender process in respect of Group-2 and Group-3. Petitioner accordingly paid EMD and other charges of Rs.5,37,36,195/- for Group-2 on 18 July 2025 at 11:23 a.m. Petitioner also paid EMD and other charges of k Page No. 2 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:39 ::: k 3/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc Rs.5,12,36,195/- for Group-3 at 11:27 a.m. on 18 July 2025. Petitioner claims that it attempted to upload documents in support of bid running over 850 pages and hoped the process of uploading to be extremely smooth. Petitioner claims to have encountered a technical glitch, on account of which it could not upload the documents before 16:00 hours on 18 July 2025. Petitioner accordingly submitted letter dated 18 July 2025 bringing the technical glitch to the notice of MCGM. Petitioner requested for extension of time by few hours or atleast one day to enable submission of the bids. Petitioner learnt that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 had also submitted bids for various groups, including Group-3 for which Petitioner also wanted to bid. Petitioner perused the data in respect of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and learnt that there is conflict of interest between them. That some of the Directors of Respondent No.5 are also Directors of Respondent No.6. The Petitioner raised a grievance about Respondent Nos.5 and 6 by letter dated 30 July 2025. Petitioner also prayed for extension of time for submission of the bids. Since no response is received, Petitioner has filed the present Petition.
3. Mr. Nankani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner cannot be kept out of the bidding process on account of technical glitch in the system of Respondent-MCGM. That Petitioner paid hefty amounts towards EMD and other charges in the morning of 18 July 2025. That most of the bidders have submitted their bids few minutes prior to the closing time on 18 July 2025 and that there is nothing unusual on k Page No. 3 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 ::: k 4/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc the part of the Petitioner attempting to upload the documents in support of its bid shortly before the closing hours. That Petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria and allowing it to participate in the bid would only enable the MCGM to have more competition. He would submit that the grievance of inability to upload supporting documents alongwith bids was brought to the notice of MCGM vide letter dated 18 July 2025 by way of e-mail. That Petitioner has requested for extension of time by only few hours or one day, which was a reasonable request. That the time for submission of bids was otherwise extended for three occasions and no prejudice would have been caused if the same was further extended by one more day.
4. Mr. Nankani would further submit that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been erroneously held to be technically eligible ignoring the objection raised by the Petitioner. That there is clear conflict of interest between Respondent Nos.5 and 6. That the MCA data of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 clearly show that their Directors are also Directors in other two entities. That financial patterns of entities of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 show coordinated business activities through common network of financial charges with same Banking Institutions. That closely associated entities have participated in multiple bids either directly or through associated Joint Ventures, which is clearly violative of tender condition. He would rely on Section 6 Clause 55 of the tender notice in support of the contention that the conflict of interest between Respondent Nos.5 and 6 would clearly disqualify them to participate in the tender process. That k Page No. 4 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 ::: k 5/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc since Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are required to be disqualified, who were erroneously held to be qualified in technical evaluation, the entire tender process is required to be initiated afresh.
5. The Petition is opposed by Mr. Sakhardande, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent-MCGM. He would submit that no other bidder has complained of any technical glitch in submission of the bids. That the MCGM has received 24 bids for eight groups and therefore the complaint of the Petitioner about inability to upload the bids on account of technical glitch cannot be accepted. He would produce a chart showing details of bids received by the MCGM in support of his contention that some of the bidders have been able to upload their bids even at 3:59 p.m. on 18 July 2025 showing thereby the system was perfectly working right till the closing date. That there was also a system under which the bidder could freeze the bid and upload the same by uploading the supporting documents later. He would submit that the MCGM is now at an advanced stage of conducting evaluation of technically qualifying bids and entertaining the present Petition at this stage would completely derail the process of awarding crucial contract for collection and transportation of solid waste generated in Mumbai City. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the Petition.
6. We have also heard Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.6 and Ms. Munot, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5. Both the counsel submit that since k Page No. 5 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 ::: k 6/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc Petitioner has not submitted its bid, it cannot be permitted to conduct a roving inquiry into eligibility of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. They submit that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria and there is no reason to disqualify them.
7. Rival contentions of parties now fall for our consideration.
8. Petitioner has raised two grievances in the present Petition. The first grievance relate to its inability to upload the bid before the closure date and time. The second grievance pertains to technical qualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
9. So far as first grievance of the Petitioner is concerned, it is contended that the technical glitch has prevented the Petitioner from uploading the documents needed in support of its bid. It is seen that the last contract awarded by MCGM for handling municipal solid waste was for the period 2018-2025. The previous contract has either expired or would be expiring shortly. The MCGM accordingly has initiated tender process for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste by issuing tender notice on 14 May 2025. This time the MCGM has divided its Wards in eight groups and has invited separate bids for each group by specifying different eligibility criteria for each group. Though the jurisdiction of MCGM is divided into eight groups, each group comprising of multiple wards, constitute a fairly large sized contract. This is clear k Page No. 6 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 ::: k 7/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc from the financial criteria prescribed for each group. The bidders are required to possess turnover in the range of Rs.65.83 crores to Rs.89.86 crores. Similarly, bidders are required to possess bid capacity ranging between Rs.438.88 crores to Rs.599.07 crores.
10. Considering the massive exercise undertaken by the MCGM of engaging contractors for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste in eight groups, though the initial closing date for submission of bids was 11 June 2025, the same was required to be extended vide Corrigendum-I upto 26 June 2025. Another extension was required to be given vide Corrigendum-II issued on 25 June 2025 upto 8 July 2025. By Corrigendum-III, certain conditions of eligibility criteria were modified and accordingly the last date for submission of bids was extended upto 18 July 2025 till 16:00 hours. The date for opening of packets A and B was also extended to 23 July 2025.
11. The Petitioner was desirous of submitting its bid in respect of groups 2 and 3. Petitioner claims to have paid EMD and other charges of Rs.5,37,36,195/- for Group-2 and Rs.5,12,36,195/- for Group-3, in the morning of 18 July 2025. It however complains that a technical glitch was noticed while uploading the tender documents and the Petitioner was unable to upload its bids for Groups 2 and 3 by 16:00 hours on 18 July 2025. Petitioner claims to have submitted letter dated 18 July 2025 to the MCGM requesting for extension of time by few hours/one day to enable it to submit its bid documents.
k Page No. 7 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 :::k 8/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc
12. The MCGM on the other hand has denied existence of any technical glitch and has submitted that several other bidders were able to upload their bids smoothly without any complaint. Except Petitioner, no other bidder has complained to the MCGM about existence of any technical glitch. From the chart produced by MCGM, it appears that it has received total 24 bids in respect of eight Groups. In respect of Group 2 and 3, MCGM has received 2 and 3 bids respectively. It therefore becomes difficult to believe that any technical glitch could selectively affect Petitioner alone preventing it from uploading its bids for Groups 2 and 3. MCGM has contended that there is nothing to indicate that the Petitioner had frozen the bid on the system, which could have enabled it to upload the supporting documents later.
13. Even otherwise, conduct of the Petitioner has been such that it is difficult to record a conclusive finding about existence of any technical glitch. The bids were required to be uploaded on or before 16:00 hours of 18 July 2025. The averments in paragraph 3.8 of the Petition read thus "Petitioner on 18 July 2025, duly addressed a letter of the said date to Respondent No.3 bringing to his notice the said facts and the Petitioner's inability to submit its bid within the stipulated time". Perusal of letter dated 18 July 2025 would indicate that the same is a typewritten letter and shown to have been signed by the authorized signatory of the lead member of M/s. Wasteline (JV). The Petition is silent about the method of dispatch and delivery of the said letter.
k Page No. 8 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 :::k 9/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc Though Mr. Nankani has orally submitted that the letter was dispatched through email, there is no such averment in the Petition. Considering the normal office hours of MCGM it becomes difficult to believe that the Petitioner would have prepared a typewritten letter after 4.00 p.m., signed the same through authorized signatory and delivered the same on 18 July 2025 before the close of office hours. If the letter was dispatched through email as sought to be orally suggested, why that email is not produced becomes a question. The email would have indicated the time at which the same was dispatched. Be that as it may. What is more objectionable is the further conduct of the Petitioner immediately after 18 July 2025. Petitioner did not take any steps after 18 July 2025 despite knowing the position that the date fixed for opening of packets A and B was 23 July 2025. Instead of taking steps in respect of submission of its own bid, Petitioner concentrated on eligibility of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and appears to have conducted inquiries into the affairs of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. It waited till 30 July 2025 to collect documents of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and addressed a detailed representation dated 30 July 2025 alleging conflict of interest between Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The entire letter dated 30 July 2025 is aimed at seeking disqualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 rather than highlighting the earlier grievance of inability to upload the bid raised vide letter dated 18 July 2025. No request was made in letter dated 30 July 2025 for extension of date for submission of bid by the Petitioner. The entire thrust of the Petitioner in the said letter dated 30 July 2025 was to secure disqualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
k Page No. 9 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 :::k 10/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc
14. The above conduct of the Petitioner in not taking any steps immediately after 18 July 2025 to ensure submission of its bids and concentrating more on seeking disqualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 creates serious doubts about correctness of Petitioner's claim about inability to upload the bid due to technical glitch. If any bidder was to face any technical glitch and was prevented from uploading the bids, such bidder would have immediately rushed to this Court. In the present case, Petitioner whiled away time and concentrated on seeking disqualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The entire efforts of Petitioner appears to have been directed more towards seeking disqualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 rather than seeking an opportunity to participate in the bidding process. After the alleged letter dated 18 July 2025 (which does not bear any acknowledgment) the Petitioner has done nothing to seek an opportunity to submit its bid. The Petitioner appears to be more interested in knocking off the bids of Respondent Nos.5 and 6, in absence of its participation in the tender process.
15. The contracts in question are for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste in city of Mumbai. The tender process for award of such contract needs to be implemented in an expeditious manner. The tender process cannot be interdicted at the instance of the Petitioner whose conduct does not inspire confidence. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is both discretionary as well as equitable. It need not be k Page No. 10 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 ::: k 11/11 6 wpl 24549.25 db os.doc exercised in every case where breach of a right is demonstrated. This Court can decline exercise of its jurisdiction if conduct of the Petitioner is not up to the mark. We are therefore not inclined to accept Petitioner's contention with regard to its inability to upload the bids due to any technical glitch.
16. So far as the second aspect of disqualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 concerned, we are of the view that the said issue is rendered academic in the light of the fact that the Petitioner has not submitted its bids. Having not participated in the tender process, Petitioner cannot question eligibility of other bidders. We are therefore not inclined to go into the issue of technical qualification of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The issue is kept open.
17. Considering the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned tender process at the instance of the Petitioner. Petition must fail. It is accordingly dismissed.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
SUDARSHAN
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2025.08.21
10:41:33
+0530
k Page No. 11 of 11
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:21:40 :::