- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 239 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. BENGALURU MAHANAGARA SWACHATE MATTU LORRY MALIKARA HAGOO GUTHIGEDARARA SANGHA NO.1, AGA GARDEN, FOOD GODWON ROAD, AT HALLI LAYOUT, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ SN BALASUBRAMANIAM …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 002. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 3. BENGALURU SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (REGD. UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 2013), 1ST FLOOR, UNI BUILDING THIMMAIAH ROAD MILLERS TANK BUND AREA VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT-1 3RD FLOOR, ANNEX-2 BUILDING BBMP HEAD OFFICE PREMISE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, AG ALONG WITH SRI. MANTHAN DAYANANDA AND SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR STATE - R1 SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO CLARIFY THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.04.2025 IN WP NO.2935/2023 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 28.05.2025 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The subject review petition is preferred seeking review of an order passed by this Court on 22-04-2025 in W.P.No.2935 of 2023. 2. This Court, while disposing the petition, had issued certain timeline to the respondent-Authority to conclude the process of tender within a time frame. The order reads as follows: “…. …. …. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) All the Writ Petitions stand disposed. (ii) The new tender that is issued during the subsistence of the subject petitions are sustained, finding no illegality. (iii) The petitioners are permitted to participate in the fresh tender that is now notified. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 (iv) The State shall redraw the timeline for completion of the process of tender at an outer limit of 4 months, if not earlier. The timeline shall be filed before this Court, by way of an affidavit, for its strict adherence. (v) As undertaken by the learned Advocate General, the petitioners who have challenged rejection of their tender or disqualification, would not come in the way their participation in the tender nor that would weigh in the mind of the Tender Scrutiny Committee while scrutinizing the bids of those petitioners. (vi) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to move the Court in the event of breach of timeline and if there is breach of timeline, the matter would be viewed seriously. Interim order, if any operating in these cases, shall stand dissolved.” 3. The review petition is preferred on the score that the respondents have violated the order by calling for tender all over again. Therefore, this Court had stalled the action of another tender being called. 4. Heard Sri Prasanna Kumar P, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.N.Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 5. The learned Advocate General, today, has filed an affidavit accepting the fact that the earlier directions of this Court as quoted supra would be adhered to, without any deviation. The affidavit of the 3rd respondent/Bangalore Solid Waste Management Limited reads as follows: “AFFIDAVIT I, Lokesh M, Chief Engineer and Chief General Manager (Tech), Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited, having office at Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the Chief Engineer and Chief General Manager (Tech) of Respondent No. 3 and Authorized Signatory to Respondent No.3. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit. I know the facts of the case. 2. I state that vide Judgment dated 22.04.2025, the Hon'ble Court allowed the Writ Petition and passed the following order: (a) All the Writ Petitions stand disposed. (b) The new tender that is issued during the subsistence of the subject petitions are sustained, finding no illegality. (c) The petitioners are permitted to participate in the fresh tender that is now notified. (d) The State shall redraw the timeline for completion of the process of tender at an outer limit of 4 months, if not earlier. The timeline shall be filed before this Court, by way of an affidavit, for its strict adherence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 (e) 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 scrutinizing the bids of those petitioners. (f) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to move the Court in the event of breach of timeline and if there is breach of timeline, the matter would be viewed seriously. 3. I state that the scope of the tender dated 07.11.2024 is to appoint the concessionaire, for comprehensive Integrated Solid Waste Management in four packages for- (1) Secondary Transportation from Transfer Stations to Designated processing centres, processing and disposal of Municipal Solid Waste in North, South, East and West and processing and disposal of the same in these four sites, for 30 years. The scope of the said tender dated 07.11.2024 did not include: (1) Primary Collection and Transportation of the Municipal Solid Waste from Door to Door to Designated locations (for an initial period of five years). 4. I state that the said tender dated 07.11.2024 called was for Secondary Transportation from Transfer Stations to Designated processing centres, processing and disposal including setting up of waste to energy plants, bio methanation plants, sani waste plants, animal carcass plants, animal rendering plants, leachate plants, RDF Processing, sale of recyclables and Scientific Landfill in four packages. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 5. I state that, in compliance of this Hon'ble Court's judgment dated 22.04.2025, a decision has now been taken to call for a new tender for Secondary Transportation from Transfer Stations to Designated processing centres and processing and disposal of the same in the form of 2 packages comprising North and South (Copy of the Paper Publication dated 11.07.2025 and the Copy of the "Request for Proposal" of the said Tender has been annexed herewith as Annexure R1 and R2 respectively). The reduction in the number of packages was done on account of shortage of availability of land for setting up processing centres at four places (North, South, East and West), the same scope of 4 packages is proposed to be called as 2 packages (North and South), as the land situated in the East and West zones, were not granted for the said purpose. 6. I state that the Respondent herein, seeks to comply with the judgement of this Hon'ble Court by having issued this fresh Tender, in line with the 07.11.2024 Tender, with only 2 slight modifications i.e. firstly, the 4 packages (North, South, East, West) was made into 2 packages (North & South) due to non- availability of land as mentioned above. Secondly, the above said tender excludes the scope of primary collection of Municipal Solid Waste from Door to Door for the entire tender period of 30 years as against the 4 package tender (dated 07.11.2024) where in the primary collection scope was excluded only for the initial period of 5 years, which has been ultimately done to benefit the Primary Collection and Transportation Contractors, who the present Petitioner is one amongst. 7. The said proposal was sent to the State Government for approval. The same has been approved by the Cabinet and a Government order has also been issued on 09.06.2025. 8. I state that the present affidavit is being filed to bring to the notice of this Hon'be Court that a notification in the form of 2 packages, in compliance of this Hon'ble Court's Judgement dated 22.04.2025, is now called for on 11.07.2025 vide No. DGM-1/BSWML/TEND/05/2025-26 for: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 (a) Appointment Of Concessionaire On Tipping Fee Basis To Execute The Comprehensive Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Facilities Including Secondary Transportation Of MSW From Transfer Stations To Designated Processing Centers And Further Processing And Disposal Of The Same In North Package (Yelahanka Zone, Dasarahalli Zone, East Zone & West Zone) of BBMP and Bengaluru Urban District jurisdiction by seeking private sector participation on Public Private Partnership ("PPP mode - DBFOT Model). (b) Appointment Of Concessionaire On Tipping Fee Basis To Execute The Comprehensive Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Facilities Including Secondary Transportation Of MSW From Transfer Stations To Designated Processing Centers And Further Processing And Disposal Of The Same In South Package (RR Nagar Zone, Mahadevapura Zone, South Zone & Bommanahalli Zone) of BBMP and Bengaluru Urban District jurisdiction by seeking private sector participation on Public Private Partnership ("PPP mode - DBFOT Model). 9. The time line for the said tender dated 11.07. 2025 is being produced below for the kind leave of this Hon'ble Court. The said timeline for the completion of the tender process requires extension from the 4-month period directed by this Hon'ble Court in its judgment dated 22.04.2025 to a period of 6-months, as additional time is necessary complete the evaluation process which requires obtaining confirmations and documents from various nationwide corporations and banks, and to finalize contract agreements for a 30-year period before awarding the tender; for which the leave of this Hon'ble Court is respectfully sought. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 *The Time line starts from the tender notification date of 11.07.2025.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is contrary to the earlier affidavit. Therefore, submits that the Review Petition should be heard on its merit. 7. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is now considered, it would amount to re-hearing of the entire matter all over again. Except the aforesaid clarification that is already rendered, rehearing of a matter which is disposed on its merits, in the garb of entertaining a review, would be sitting in an appeal over the order that is passed by this Court. The review petition, at any time filed, should meet the test, as laid down by the Apex Court in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 case of KAMLESH VERMA VS. MAYAWATI1, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.20.1 and 20.2 has held as follows: “20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. 1 (2013)8 SCC 320 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” The Apex Court, in the afore quoted judgment, has laid down postulates as to when the review petition should be entertained and when it should not. The clauses that would indicate that the review petition would not be entertained, squarely applies to the facts of the case at hand, as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, if entertained, would fall afoul of the postulates so laid down by the Apex Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29379 RP No. 239 of 2025 8. In the light of the aforesaid, while cautioning the respondents/Authority that they would not deviate from what is stated today, the Review Petition stands disposed. It is needless to observe that the dismissal of the subject Review Petition would not in any way preclude the petitioner or any person to call in question the process of tender, if they are so aggrieved. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1