HC seeks govt affidavit on BBMP’s SWM re-tender notification

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has directed the state government to file an affidavit regarding the re-tender notification (Request for Proposal) for solid waste management in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

Justice M Nagaprasanna stayed the new tender notification, observing that there was a breach of the undertaking given by the Advocate General, which was recorded in the earlier round of litigation.

On April 22, 2025, the court, while disposing of the petition, had recorded that the tender notification issued on November 7, 2024, during the pendency of the petitions, was sustained as there was no illegality.

The petitioners in those pleas were permitted to participate in the tender. The court had also stated that the state shall redraw the timeline for completing the tender process within an outer limit of four months, if not earlier. It had further directed the state to file the timeline by way of an affidavit for strict adherence.

"As undertaken by the learned Advocate General, the petitioners, who have challenged rejection of their tender or disqualification, would not come in the way of their participation in the tender nor that would weigh in the mind of the Tender Scrutiny Committee while scrutinising the bids of those petitioners," the court had said, while disposing of the petition.

Moving a review petition, the Bengaluru Mahanagara Swachate Mattu Lorry Malikara Hagoo Gutthigedarara Sangha stated that their apprehension that the BBMP had no interest in continuing with the earlier tender had come true with the issuance of the new tender notification. This, the review petitioners contended, amounted to a clear breach of the undertaking given to the court.

It was submitted that the government order dated May 26, 2025, approving the call for fresh tender, contained objectionable clauses. Clauses (c) and (d) of this order stipulated taking approval from the minister concerned, which was in clear violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act.

The petitioners sought a review of the order passed by the court on April 22, 2025, whereby the earlier round of litigation was closed, following an assurance from the Advocate General on behalf of the state government.

On the other hand, the Advocate General insisted that both the tenders were different with no similarity and that there was no breach of undertaking. He also assured the court that an affidavit explaining the factual position would be filed.