Karnataka High Court directs BSWML to complete tender to chose contractors for city’s solid waste management within four months

While allowing the Bangalore Solid Waste Management Ltd (BSWML) to continue its tender invited on November 7, 2024, for handling city’s solid wastes, the High Court of Karnataka has permitted the contractors, who were either disqualified or their bids were rejected and have filed petitions before the court, to participate in the tender.

Also, the court directed the State government, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and BSWML, which is the government-owned company to execute solid waste management (SWM) projects of the BBMP, to redraw the timeline for present tender and complete it within an outer limit of four months, if not earlier.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by Sri Banashankari Enterprises and other contractors, who have questioned either rejection of their bids and their disqualification in the tender process initiated in 2022-23, in their multiple rounds of litigation since the first tender invited by BSWML in August 2022.

While some of the petitioner-contractors have also sought discontinuation of the tender invited on November 7, 2024, when these petitions were being adjudicated and wanted continuation of the tender invited in January 2023 after recalling the first tender invited on August 28, 2022.

Inflated bids

The government and the BSWML during July-September 2024, after informing the court, had decided to cancel tender invited in January 2023 citing excessively high tender premium quoted by bidders (in the range from 12% to 82% above the tendered amount), changes in market conditions rendering initial quoted rates during 2022-23 potentially having become invalid, and changes need in tender conditions for timely and effective SWM.

However, the contractors had contended that the authorities recalling the tenders and reissuing them repeatedly for extraneous reasons, and reasons projected for cancellation of tender with particular reference to economic viability, is a ruse to recall the earlier tender and continue with the fresh tender. Some of the contractors even wanted the Court to assess the price quoted earlier and now, and the reserve price then and the reserve price now.

Apex court judgement

However, citing apex court’s judgements on powers of the courts to interfere in tender matters, Justice Nagaprasanna said that the Court can mainly interfere in tender when there is arbitrariness but in the present case no right has evolved for any contractor for the court to interject the tender as no successful bidder was notified so far.

The court said cancellation of the earlier tender was “based on sound reasoning and does not suffer from palpable or demonstrable arbitrariness.”