METRRO WASTE HANDLING Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "There is no 'as far as possible' on the question of un-touchability. If it is to go, it must go in its entirety ."

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by a few conditions in the tender (hereafter "NIT") issued by the respondent (the Delhi Jal Board, hereafter "DJB") inviting bids for mechanized cleaning of sewers in the city of Delhi. The NIT was issued on 23.03.2018 and later a corrigendum was issued on 21.05.2018.The Petitioner is a Delhi based 2004 incorporated company under Indian law. It provides solid waste management services. It has also diversified in the work of mechanical road sweeping, sewer cleaning, transportation and processing of construction and demolition of waste. It presently provides solid waste management services to the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, and North Delhi Municipal Corporation; it also provides mechanical road sweeping to South Delhi Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, through its various commercial activities provides employment to approximately 600 (Six Hundred) individuals. It presently provides mechanized sewer cleaning services to DJB, a corporation created by law by the Delhi Assembly in 1998. DJB is responsible for supply of potable water to the National Capital Territory, NDMC (New Delhi Municipal Council) and Cantonment areas. It also collects sewage from these areas, for treatment and disposal. Therefore, DJB is responsible for treatment and disposal of waste-water which it does through an efficient network of about 7000Km of sewage lines across Delhi.

(3.) It is claimed that the petitioner has in the past carried out sewer cleaning work for the DHB and possesses the requisite experience to carry such works, which are the subject matter of the NIT. It claims that it has the capacity and wherewithal to meet the financial and technical criteria specified under the NIT. In one such tender due to the capabilities of the Petitioner to carry out the work of sewer cleaning on a large scale, DJB awarded the work order for five vehicles for the purpose of sewer cleaning. The petitioner claims that a tender condition, capping award of one machine to one bidder is said to be an unreasonable restriction, not premised on any basis. It is highlighted that such a condition was introduced by DJB for the first time; the petitioner relies on previous tender conditions to bring home the point. The petitioner complains that having acquired expertise and even provided the required infrastructure over a period of 14 years (since its inception) for performing work similar to that in the NIT, the sudden imposition of the restriction that one bidder will be awarded only one vehicle under the NIT would make redundant its acquired infrastructure and investments made; it would also impact its 600 employees (and their dependents) associated with it adversely.