The case involves Geocon Consultancy, a proprietary firm, challenging the e-tender notice dated June 10, 2024, floated by the Latur City Municipal Corporation for solid waste management. The petitioner questioned certain eligibility criteria and conditions, claiming they were arbitrary and designed to favor a specific bidder. The court ruled that the petitioner has the right to challenge the conditions even without participating in the tender but ultimately upheld the tender process, finding no arbitrariness or malice in the eligibility criteria set by the Corporation.

1. Background:

• Petitioner: Geocon Consultancy, a firm engaged in solid waste management.
• Respondents: The State of Maharashtra and the Latur City Municipal Corporation.
• The petitioner challenged the e-tender notice issued for the selection of a solid waste management operator in Latur.

2. Previous Litigation:

• A previous tender notice issued in February 2024 was quashed by the High Court due to non-compliance with Government guidelines. The court ordered a fresh tender process.

3. Petitioner's Contentions:

• The petitioner alleged that the fresh tender process retains several arbitrary eligibility conditions.
• Key conditions challenged include the requirement for seven years of experience, a minimum turnover of ₹90 crores, and a solvency certificate of ₹50 crores.
• The petitioner argued these conditions are unfair, favor specific bidders, and do not comply with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

4. Respondents' Arguments:

• The Latur City Municipal Corporation justified the eligibility criteria, stating they are essential for selecting experienced and financially capable contractors.
• The Corporation argued that the petitioner lacks the locus to challenge the tender conditions without participating in the process.

5. Court's Observations:

• The court acknowledged the petitioner’s right to challenge the tender without participating.
• It found no arbitrariness in the eligibility criteria, noting that the Corporation has the discretion to set conditions that align with its objectives.
• The court also addressed the petitioner’s concerns regarding the absence of a fixed tender price, stating that in service-oriented contracts like this, it is difficult to determine a fixed price.

6. Conclusion:

• The court ruled in favor of the Latur City Municipal Corporation, dismissing the petition and allowing the tender process to proceed.