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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 :::
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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 2029 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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.
12025 SCC OnLine Bom 282 Page No. 6 of 20 29 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 taken Page No. 10 of 20 29 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx in 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 :::
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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 2029 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx Sr. 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 2029 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 4at 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 3bins, 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 3time 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 4system with toll free number.
13 Workforce (Manpower) Deployment on 5every 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 below Sr. 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 maintained Page No. 18 of 20 29 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: Ajit Pathrikar 15 & 16-WPL-21353 & 21228-2025-FC.docx Group 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 ::: 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 - 31/07/2025 21:12:30 :::