WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.7001 OF 2025 PETITIONER : 1) M/S P GOPINATHA REDDY Through authorised Representative Raman S/0 Ashok Bhabhda, Age 41 years, Occ: Business R/o. No. 6, Behind Sandhya Theatre, 1sst B Cross, Old Madiwada, Banglore – 560068. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENT(S) : 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Urban Secretary, Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Amravati Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Rajkamal Square, Amravati, Maharashtra. 3) Konark Infrastructure Ltd, through its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Konark Plaza, Sapna Talkies, Ulhasnagar, Thane, Maharashtra - 421 003. 4) Urban Enviro Waste Management Ltd. Through its Managing Director, 26, Matey Square, BPCL Petrol Punp, Gopal Nagar Road, Nagpur - 440022. nd.thawre 2026:BHC-NAG:11919-DB WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Jugalkishore Gilda, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. Ashwin Deshpande and Mr. Vedant Pandey, Advocates for the petitioner/s Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for the respondent/State Mr. R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent No.2-Corporation None for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : 02.09.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.) 1. Heard. 2. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. The respondent No. 3 was served through email and the affidavit in this regard is filed by the petitioner on record. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 though served, did not appear in the matter. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the decision of the respondent No.2-Amravati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as “Corporation”) whereby respondent No.3-M/s Konark Infrastructure Ltd. (herein after referred as Konark) and respondent No. 4-M/s. Urban Enviro nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 3 Waste Management Ltd. (herein after referred as Urban Enviro) were declared as technically qualified bidders in the tender for collection and transportation of Municipal Solid Waste at Sukali/Aakoli Processing Site, Amravati, despite both bidders allegedly failing to satisfy the mandatory technical eligibility criteria. 4. Brief facts of the present case are as under: The Petitioner company had participated in the tender process initiated by respondent No. 2 Corporation. The Corporation issued a tender on 08.10.2025 bearing tender no. AMC/SD/SWMTEN/01/2025, for “Selection of Service Operator for collection & transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to Processing Plant/Disposal Site at Sukali/Aakoli Compost Depot in Amravati Municipal Corporation” (hereinafter referred as “Project”). 5. In the pre-bid meeting held on 14.10.2025, some clarifications were sought from the participants and resultantly a Corrigendum dated 17.10.2025 was issued by the nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 4 Corporation. The Petitioner, being desirous of participating in the tender process and in view of fulfilling the pre-qualification criteria submitted its bid in accordance with tender conditions. 6. The Corporation selected three successful technical bidders which are as follows: a. M/s P Gopinath (Petitioner) b. M/s Konark Infrastructure Ltd (Konark) c. M/s Urban Enviro Waste Management (Urban Enviro) 7. The Petitioner company being a pioneer in the field was accordingly qualified for the technical bid and was invited to give a presentation on 06.11.2025. 8. The petitioner, post publication of the technical bid documents, went through the Technical bid report of respondent No. 3 - Konark and respondent No.4 - Urban Enviro. Thereupon, the petitioner revealed that the aforesaid bidders did not meet the technical qualification as per the nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 5 Tender Document. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by this filed an objection dated 06.11.2025, before the Corporation informing the said Tendering authority that respondent No. 3 - Konark and respondent No. 4 - Urban Enviro do not meet a technical criteria and requested to publish a revised Technically Qualified Bidders List in disqualifying respondent No. 3 Konark and respondent No. 4-Urban Enviro. 10. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection pointing out several shortfalls of respondent No. 3 - M/s Konark and respondent No. 4 - Urban Enviro through email and then tendered the hard copy of the objection 10.11.2025 to the office of Corporation. 11. Shri. Gilda, Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that there are deficiencies under Clause 2.9(e) which requires the Bidder to ensure that at least 150 numbers of Hydraulic System Waste collection vehicle (Diesel/E- vehicle) being registered within the last 07 years in the name of firm nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 6 and the Registration Certificate (RC Book) of each vehicle must be provided as proof of ownership. 12. Shri. Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per respondent No.3 - Konark’s bid document from serial No. 1 to 63 the vehicles are registered in the name of Konark Green Enviro Pvt. Ltd which is a subsidiary firm of the respondent No. 3 - Konark. It was further argued that the ownership should be of the bidder or at least an agreement should be there on record showing that the vehicles are operated and maintained under a lawful agreement. 13. It was submitted that respondent No.4 Urban Enviro, as per Clause 3.5, Appendix V Format for available Machinery list, was mandatorily required to submit proof of ownership in the form of Registration Certificate for a minimum of 150 Hydraulic System Vehicles (Diesel/Electric). But the respondent No. 4 Urban Enviro has failed to furnish any such documentary evidence. The documents placed by the respondent No. 4 Urban Enviro merely contain a list of nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 7 machinery without supporting Registration Certificates or any proof of ownership or possession as required under the Tender qualification criteria. 14. In support of his contention Shri. Gilda, Senior Advocate, further placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in case of Municipal Corpn., Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd., reported in (2018) 5 SCC 462; W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 451; Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. Mandeepa Enterprises, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1959; and Bharat Biotech International Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, reported in 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 375. 15. It was argued that a significant number of their vehicles were registered only in 2023, postdating the tender publication and thereby invalidating such vehicles for qualification under the seven year operation stipulation. Moreover, many vehicles listed were either not hydraulic nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 8 system vehicles or refuse compactors as defined in the Tender, but instead constituted non-qualifying equipment such as garbage tippers, garbage van, tractors, dumper placers, front end loaders, and other miscellaneous machinery irrelevant to tender’s scope. 16. The petitioner further pointed out the shortfalls of respondent No. 3-Konark and respondent No. 4 Urban Enviro under clause 2.9(g) of the Technical Criteria. The Technical bid Criteria as laid down in Clause 2.9(g) of the Tender Document says that, bidders must ensure that at least 12 numbers of Refuse compactors are vehicles being registered within the last 07 years in the name of the firm. Registration Certificate (R.C Book) of each compactor must be provided as proof of ownership. 17. It is submitted that as per respondent No. 3 Konark’s bid document it discloses 0 Refuse Compactors against the mandatory requirement of 12 Refuse Compactors. It is further submitted that the vehicles labeled as ‘Compactor’ are nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 9 described on their RC Books as Hydraulic vehicles, not Refuse Compactors. 18. Further, the petitioner placed on record an agreement dt. 18.10.2025, of respondent No. 4-Urban Enviro with M/s. Amrut Enterprise valid for 5 years. It clearly states that these vehicles are not used before in any of the works executed by the respondent No. 4-Urban Enviro. 19. The petitioner further pointed out the shortfalls of respondent No. 3-Konark under clause 3.1 of the Tender Document/Table No. 18 Corrigendum. The Technical Criteria as laid down in Clause 3.1.1.1 of the Tender Document and Table 18 of Corrigendum says that Bidder should have experience for Door-to-Door Collection and Transport of Municipal Solid Waste up to dumping in a single contract in last 07 years continuous period of 03 years with minimum 150 TPD (Tons Per Day) for one project or 180 TPD for two projects. 20. It was argued by the petitioner that the respondent nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 10 No. 3-Konark for qualifying the minimum three years of continuous experience and the 250 TPD has annexed an experience certificate issued by Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Mira Bhainder Municipal Corporation and Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. The experience certificates are based on the work order issued by Malegaon Municipal Corporation with respect to work commenced on 15.09.2024, Mira Bhainder Municipal Corporation the work on 01.04.2023, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation the work on 01.04.2023. 21. The petitioner contends that the work commencing date of the said contract clearly stipulates that it is a breach of continuous minimum period of 3 years from date of publication of tender. And the operational certificates submitted by the respondent No.3 do not satisfy the mandatory tender criteria. 22. Lastly, the petitioner contended that the respondent No.3 has submitted incomplete methodology as per nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 11 clause 3.1.1.3 and 3.1.1.4 of the Tender Document and Table 26 of Corrigendum which requires that the bidder must ensure that at least 12 nos. of Refuse compactors are vehicles being registered within the last 07 years in the name of the firm. Registration Certificate (RC Book) of each compactor must be provided as proof of ownership. The Bidder shall also submit Overall Approach & Methodology for undertaking the Project, which shall include Technical Approach and Methodology, including assumptions in development of the primary collection system, storage system and transport system with commitment of minimum number of vehicles and manpower to be deployed. 23. The petitioner contends that in the present tender, the scope of work as given under clause 52(f) of the document is that Minimum 20 workers should be deployed per ward daily. There are a total 22 wards of respondent No. 2 Corporation, and respondent No. 3-Konark has not included that portion in the report which can be the reason why the bid nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 12 of Konark is substantially less than that of the present petitioner. 24. It is submitted that the petitioner filed the shortfalls of respondent No.3 with Corporation but the Corporation did not disqualify respondent No.3-Konark and ignored the said shortfalls. 25. Later on, the petitioner has brought the attention to an agreement dated 28.11.2025, which was executed between the Corporation and respondent No. 3-Konark in respect of the impugned tender for Collection and Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste to Sukali/Akoli Processing site. The terms which are demonstrated in the agreement are deviated from the material tender after the bidding process was concluded. 26. On the other hand, Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Corporation has replied to each and every shortfall pointed out by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2-Corporation argued that the respondent nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 13 No.3-Konark has given details of all the vehicles as well as compactors and the concerned officers of the respondent No.2- Corporation have verified that the details of the vehicles given by the respondent No.3-Konark matches the tender requirements. 27. Further, it is submitted that the tippers are not only hydraulic vehicles but are widely used for transportation of garbage from the city to the dumping yards for the purpose of Waste Management. It is submitted that all vehicles of TATA ACE are the vehicles which are widely used by the contractors to carry garbage. 28. While replying to the 2nd shortfall pointed out by the petitioner with respect to the clause of Technical Criteria 2.9 (g), Corporation argued that certain vehicles are registered in the name of Konark Green Environ Ltd. wherein Konark holds 9,900 shares out of 10,000 shares in Konark Green Environ Ltd. Thus, it fulfills the criteria as mentioned in Clause 2.9(g). nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 14 29. It is submitted that the Registration Certificate of certain compactors reflects as Garbage Vehicle and not waste Collection Vehicle as is contended by the petitioner. But the meaning of both the vehicles is same and does not hold any footing. Further, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (PHD) Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has given Experience Certificates on 01.03.2024 and 12.08.2025 to respondent No. 3 Konark, wherein it has shown the experience of Collection and Transportation of Solid Waste generated from Street Sweeping, Community Bins and Door-to-door collection for the period of 8 years on outsource basis from 05.12.2013 to 31.03.2023 and the later from 01.04.2023 till date. Therefore, respondent No.3-Konark has more experience as per the requirement. 30. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 Konark has also complied with the tender condition of submitting the overall Approach and methodology for undertaking the project which includes a number of manpower. nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 15 31. The learned counsel submits that as far as the shortfalls in respondent No. 4-Urban Enviro are concerned the same does not need any specific reply for the reason that the grounds raised by the petitioner do not stand statutorily. The learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 and the judgment of the Principal Seat of this Court in the case of R and B Infra Project Limited Vs. Mira Bhainder Municipal Corporation and Ors., passed in Civil Writ Petition No.15766 of 2022, dated 17.10.2024. 32. We have heard the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 33. It is observed that the issues, which are involved in the present matter, are that: 1) Whether the ‘hydraulic vehicles’ and ‘refuse compactors’ relied upon by respondent No.3 conform to the specifications and mandatory requirements prescribed under nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 16 the tender conditions? 2) Whether mere registration of the vehicles in the name of respondent No. 3 is sufficient to establish compliance with the mandatory vehicle-related eligibility criteria under the tender conditions? 3) Whether the Experience certificates produced by respondent No. 3 validly establish the mandatory minimum continuous experience of three years and the requisite seven years' experience of respondent No. 3-Konark as prescribed under the tender conditions? 4) Whether respondent No. 2 – Corporation, while entering into the tender agreement with respondent No. 3 – Konark, acted contrary to or deviated from the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender? 34. Having considered the rival submissions, the documents placed on record and the terms and conditions of the tender, the aforesaid issues which are involved are required to be examined with reference to the eligibility conditions nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 17 prescribed by the tendering authority. 35. Before proceeding further, let us see first to examine the scope of judicial review in the matter of tender awards. In K.K. Vidyut v. Union of India, reported in 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 806, it is held that judicial interference in tender processes should be minimal, focusing only on issues of arbitrariness, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. The principle applies where the decision-making authority has exceeded its power; committed an error of law; breached the rules of natural justice; reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached; or abused its powers. 36. Thus, it is evident that in the matter of tender awards the intervention of the Court is limited unless there is an evident illegality arbitrariness or mala fide. 37. Further, it is a well settled principle of law that the tender authority is entitled to prescribe the eligibility criteria and technical requirement. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the tender are to be considered as they are nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 18 prescribed by the tender authority as observed in case of Municipal Corpn., Ujjain (Supra); W.B. State Electricity Board (Supra); Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. (Supra) and Bharat Biotech International Ltd.(Supra). 38. Let us examine whether there is a substantive compliance made by the respondent No.3 with the tenders’ specifications/eligibility. 39. As per the tender conditions, in Clause 2.9(e), it is mandatory for the bidder to ensure that at least 150 numbers of Hydraulic System Waste collection vehicle (Diesel/E- vehicle) being registered within the last 07 years in the name of firm. There is further mandatory condition to show the compliance of the above referred condition that the bidder shall file a Registration Certificate (RC Book) of each vehicle. 40. The record shows no compliance of the above referred clause 2.9(e). It is apparent on the face of the record that the documents pertaining to the vehicles show that the vehicles are of following types: ‘Ringerbell/Garbage tippers’, nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 19 ‘tractor’, ‘Garbage Van’ ‘COWL’, ‘Dumper Placer’ and ‘tilt cab’ vehicles and other miscellaneous machinery. 41. Thus, it is evident that the respondent-Corporation has not filed on record the documents showing ownership of Hydraulic system Waste collection vehicle being registered within the last 07 years in the name of the respondent No.3 firm. 42. The learned counsel for the Corporation tried to show compliance to the effect that the vehicles though registered as other than hydraulic vehicle, but they are the hydraulic vehicles. For this purpose, photographs were shown of such vehicles. We are not aware that subsequently any alteration is made in the vehicles which were not original hydraulic vehicles. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in of Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandra, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 722, has observed that no vehicle can be altered in a manner where particulars in the certificate of registration are at variance with those “originally specified by the nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 20 manufacturer”. 43. Moving to the next compliance with specific requirements laid down in clause 2.9 (g), which mandates a bidder to have 12 numbers of refuse compactors. It further mandates to file documents of ownership namely RC Book of each vehicle as proof of ownership. 44. The documents, filed on record to show the compliance of clause 2.9(g), do not support the case of the respondent-Corporation as regards the compliance. No RC Book shows that the vehicle is the refused compactor. Thus, it can safely be said that there is no compliance of clause 2.9(g). 45. Furthermore, the RC Book of most of the vehicles on record, are under the name of the Konark Green Enviro (subsidiary of the respodent No.3-Konark). As per clause 2.9(e) and 2.9(g), the ownership of the vehicles should be of the bidder and at least an agreement should be there on record to show that the vehicles are operative and maintained under the lawful agreement. nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 21 46. As per the share certificate, the vehicles, stand in the name of Konark Green, which was incorporated on 29.06.2022. However, the list of vehicles submitted by the respondent reveals that the said vehicles were registered in 2013, i.e., nearly nine years prior to the incorporation of Konark Green. 47. The respondent while contending subsidiary relationship of the respondent No.3 with Konark green, has failed to place any documentary evidence as to any proof of ownership or possession of the vehicles that were operated and maintained under a lawful agreement of the said subsidiary firm. 48. As far as the stipulation under clause 2.9(d) is concerned, which requires door to door collection and transport of Solid Waste up to dumping in a single contract in last 07 years continuously for the period of 03 years with minimum 150 TPD (Tons Per Day) for one project or 180 TPD for two projects. The respondents have produced two Experience nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 22 Certificates dated 01.03.2024 and 12.08.2025 received from Ullas Nagar Municipal Corporation. 49. The certificate dated 01.03.2024 is admittedly in the name of M/s. Konark Enviro Project Pvt. Ltd (subsidiary of respondent No. 3), covers the experience from 05.12.2013 to 31.03.2023. Whereas the certificate dated 12.08.2025 speaks about the experience of respondent No.3-Konark from 01.04.2023 up to the date of publication of the tender notice i.e. on 08.10.2025. 50. Thus, the certificate does not fulfill the condition of having 3 years’ experience till the date of issuance of tender from 01.04.2023. 51. Similarly, the experience certificates as placed on record of respondent No.4 establishes that the condition as regards the experience is not fulfilled. The respondent- Corporation has also admitted the said fact. 52. The scope of work, as given under clause 52(f) of nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 23 the Tender document is that minimum 20 workers should be deployed per ward daily, the same is not complied with. 53. Yet, there is another aspect of the matter which assumes considerable significance in the factual background of the present petition. After the tender process was concluded, the work order was issued in favour of respondent No. 3 Konark and an agreement dated 28.11.2025 was executed. However, the said agreement incorporated certain additional/ modified clauses which were not present in the original tender document. It is a well settled principle of law laid down in the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Shanti Construction (P) Ltd. v. State of Odisha, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2368 and in case of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL- SML (Joint Venture Consortium), reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 and in the judgment of High Court in case of Mahalsa Services v. State of Goa, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 250, wherein it is held that incorporation of conditions cannot be permitted to alter the eligibility requirements prescribed in nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 24 the original tender. 54. Upon perusal of the agreement dated 28.11.2025, it can be observed that Clause 31.1 provides that the Service Contractor shall provide all required vehicles in good condition which are newly purchased and registered after 1st April 2025 and shall provide all required permanent vehicles within the 90 days from the date of Contract Agreement. Further, the Commissioner of the Corporation reserves the right to permit the operation and maintenance of vehicles that are purchased not more than two (2) years prior to 1st April 2025, based on project requirements and local conditions. 55. The point on which the agreement dated 28.11.2025 is deviated from original tender condition is that the agreement now grants relaxation to respondent No. 3 to deploy vehicles purchased up to two years to 01.04.2025. This relaxation was never contemplated under the tender document and materially dilutes the mandatory condition and gives relaxation to respondent No. 3 to deploy older vehicles which nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 25 would not have satisfied the original tender requirement. 56. Once the tender process had commenced and the bidders had submitted their bids on the basis of the stipulated conditions, the terms could not subsequently be altered in a manner which would confer advantage upon a particular bidder or dilute a mandatory requirement. Thus, this would also undermine the requirement of fairness and equal treatment amongst all the bidders. Therefore, judicial review is warranted in the present case because the material on record demonstrates a departure from the mandatory conditions which governed the tender process itself. Such departure cannot be used to validate an otherwise deficient bid. The same principle is reiterated in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Banshidhar Construction (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., reported in (2024) 10 SCC 273 and in case of Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 215. 57. In the view of above referred backdrop, it is nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 26 observed that the eligibility requirements as specified in tender document in relation to the nature, specifications of the vehicles and experience required for execution of the work for “Collection & Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to Processing Plant/Disposal Site”, were intended to ensure that the successful bidder possessed the requisite capacity and experience. Compliance with such conditions was therefore required at the stage of evaluation of the bids and could not be postponed or supplied subsequently. 58. Accordingly, we hold that respondent No. 3- Konark has failed to satisfy the mandatory vehicle-related and experience-related eligibility conditions prescribed under the tender document. The subsequent work order and agreement, containing clauses which were not part of the original tender conditions, cannot cure such fundamental deficiencies or retrospectively render respondent No. 3 eligible. 59. By entering into an agreement dated 28.11.2025, the period of agreement is 7 years (84 months) and considering nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 27 the time period lapsed, we are of the opinion that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 ought to have disqualified at the stage of technical bid and however, the financial bid of both the respondents were considered by ignoring necessary conditions of the tender, we have no hesitation to hold that the agreement entered into between the respondent No.3 is for the period of 7 years with effect from 28.11.2025, needs to be quashed and set aside as the substantial period is yet to complete. 60. 60. Even from the documents though the experience of work of collection & transportation of Solid Waste up to Processing Plant/Disposal Site at Sukali/Aakoli Compost Depot in Amravati Municipal Corporation, was called for, the documents on record show that the respondent No.3 is having only the experience of an Operator and not having the experience of transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to Processing Plant/Disposal Site. This is also ground for disqualifying the respondent No.3 in the tender process. 61. Furthermore, admittedly, only three bidders were nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 28 qualified for opening of financial bid, namely the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 and 4, because we have held that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not the qualified bidders, the petitioner will be the only bidder who can be held as qualified to proceed in absence of any material produced before us to show that the petitioner is not qualified. 62. In the circumstances, the respondent-Corporation shall consider the bid of the petitioner if there is no legal impediment in considering the petitioner’s bid only being the qualified bidder. 63. Accordingly, we pass the following order : 1. The writ petition is allowed. 2. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are held to be not qualified to participate in the tender dated 08.10.2025, bearing tender No.AMC/SD/SWMTEN/01/2025, for selection of Service Operator for collection & transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to Processing Plant/Disposal Site at Sukali/Aakoli Compost Depot in Amravati Municipal Corporation. 3. Consequently, the agreement between respondent nd.thawre WP7001-2025(JUD).odt 29 Nos.2 and 3, dated 28.11.2025, is hereby quashed and set aside. 4. The respondent No.2-Corporation shall consider the petitioner for award of tender No.AMC/SD/SWMTEN/01/2025, for selection of Service Operator for collection & transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to Processing Plant/Disposal Site at Sukali/Aakoli Compost Depot in Amravati Municipal Corporation, if there is no legal impediment being single qualified bidder or otherwise. 5. The respondent No.2-Corporation shall take decision as regards the petitioner within three weeks from the date of furnishing the copy of this judgment. 6. Till such decision, the work awarded to the respondent No.3 for collection & transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to Processing Plant/Disposal Site at Sukali/Aakoli Compost Depot in Amravati Municipal Corporation, shall be allowed to be continued through the respondent No.3. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) nd.thawre Signed by: Mr. Niranjan Thawre Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2026 20:05:19