Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard two writ petitions challenging the tender process initiated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste in its wards. The petitioners, M/s. Veer Infra through sole proprietor Mr. Gaurav Jain and STC-ETC-MAE (JV), are engaged in solid waste collection and transportation and had previously worked with MCGM. MCGM floated a tender notice on 14 May 2025 for a seven-year period from 2025 to 2032. A pre-bid meeting was held on 29 May 2025, and thereafter MCGM issued three corrigenda. Corrigendum No.I dated 10 June 2025 extended bid submission to 26 June 2025 and bid opening to 1 July 2025; Corrigendum No.II dated 25 June 2025 extended submission to 8 July 2025 and opening to 11 July 2025; and Corrigendum No.III dated 1 July 2025 modified several tender conditions. The petitioners contended that Corrigendum-III amounted to a wholesale modification of the tender conditions and was designed to disqualify most bidders and eliminate fair competition. They alleged that the newly introduced conditions had no rational nexus with the object of the tender and were an abuse of power. Specific grievances included the requirement of seven years' experience in door-to-door collection, storage, segregation, transportation and disposal of municipal solid waste, which they claimed was impossible because similar tenders of that magnitude had not been floated in Mumbai in the past seven years and SLF waste processing plants had been installed only five years earlier. The petitioners also objected to the marking system introduced by Corrigendum-III, which reserved 45 marks (plus 5 for presentation, totaling 50) for subjective analysis, leaving room for arbitrariness and enabling rejection of otherwise eligible bidders since the minimum prescribed marks were 70. Further, the petitioners in WPL 21353 of 2025 challenged the eligibility criteria relating to technical capacity, financial capacity, net worth, turnover, regrouping of wards from 14 groups to 8 groups, requirement of lead member having 50% technical capacity, and the minimum 70% marks. They also objected to the restriction that Joint Venture bidders could participate against only one group, while individual bidders could bid for multiple groups. MCGM opposed the petitions, contending that the tender conditions were drafted for comprehensive contracts covering the entire spectrum from door-to-door collection to final disposal on a turnkey basis. MCGM clarified that it had not prescribed work experience of seven years, but only required bidders to have executed works of stipulated value at any time during the past seven years. MCGM also stated that the restriction on JV bidders was removed by Corrigendum-III, allowing a bidder to bid against any number of groups, and that the conditions were formulated keeping in mind the peculiar requirements of Mumbai, not to include or exclude any particular bidder. By order dated 16 July 2025, the court granted the petitioners liberty to submit their bids without prejudice to their contentions. The court reserved judgment on 23 July 2025 and pronounced it on 29 July 2025, but the provided excerpt does not include the final decision or operative directions.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review of Tender Conditions - Arbitrariness and Fair Competition - Not applicable - Petitioners challenged the tender conditions and Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025 as arbitrary and intended to eliminate fair competition, alleging lack of rational nexus and abuse of power; the Court heard detailed submissions on both sides, but the provided excerpt does not include the final holding (Paras 5-8). B) Tender Law - Eligibility Criteria - Experience and Financial Requirements - Not applicable - Petitioners argued that seven years' experience in door-to-door collection, storage, segregation, transportation and disposal was impossible and that SLF waste processing plants existed only five years; MCGM clarified that no seven-year work experience was prescribed but only execution of works of stipulated value at any time during the past seven years; no final decision was recorded in the excerpt (Paras 5-8). C) Tender Law - Evaluation and Marking System - Subjective Criteria - Not applicable - Petitioners contended that reserving 45 marks for work plan and 5 marks for presentation with minimum 70 marks conferred wide discretion to reject unwanted bidders; MCGM's response to this specific grievance was not included in the provided excerpt (Paras 5-6). D) Tender Law - Joint Venture Bidding Restrictions - Not applicable - Petitioners alleged that JV bidders were restricted to one group while individual bidders could bid for multiple groups; MCGM stated on instructions that the restriction was removed by Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025 permitting bids for any number of groups; no final adjudication appeared in the excerpt (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tender conditions and Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025 for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste were arbitrary, unreasonable, lacked rational nexus with the object of the tender, and violated principles of fair competition; whether a direction should be issued for fresh tender notice with eligibility criteria as stipulated in the earlier tender floated for 2018-2025.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in provided excerpt. The High Court reserved judgment on 23 July 2025 and pronounced on 29 July 2025; the text excerpt does not include the final operative order.
Law Points
- tender conditions must have rational nexus with the object of the tender
- arbitrariness in tender process violates fair competition
- a corrigendum can modify tender conditions
- experience of past seven years means execution of works of stipulated value at any time during that period
- restriction on joint venture bidders removed by Corrigendum-III
