Karnataka High Court
Sri B S Kiran Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
WP No. 27474 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 27474 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN
1. SRI B S KIRAN KUMAR
S/O B R SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SRI LAKSHMI RANGANATHASWAMY ENTERPRISES
NO.2666, 7TH MAIN, 17TH D CROSS
OPP POST OFFICE BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BANASHANAKRI BENGALURU--560070
2. SRI DILIP KUMAR C M
S/O C C MUTHYALAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S CPC AND SONS
NO.195/14, 7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
VS GARDEN, CHAMARAJAPETE
BENGALURU-560026
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA 3. SRI PRADEEP R
RAGHAVENDRA S/O RANGASWAMY
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PROPRIETOR OF M/S PRADEEP R ENTERPRISES,
NO.30, 13TH B CROSS,
OPP SBI BANK, MALAGALA
VISHWANEEDAM POST
BENGALURU-560091
4. SRI N B MANJUNATHA
S/O BOMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISES
NO.55, 3RD MAIN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
WP No. 27474 of 2025
HC-KAR
RANATHAPURA KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560079
5. SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR D
S/O DORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SANTOSH KUMAR D ENTERPRISES
NO.65/2, 11TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
KAVERIPURA KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560079
6. SRI ANJANEYA
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S ANNAMAM DEVI PRASANNA
NO.100, 1ST MAIN,
5TH CROSS,
B CHANDRAPPA NAGAR ADUGODI POST
BENGALURU-560030
7. SRI VENKATESH R
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S BALAJI ENTERPRISES,
NO.265, GROUND FLOOR,
1ST B MAIN ROAD,
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095
8. SRI M SHIVA KUMAR
S/O N MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S OLN ENTERPRISES
149, 4TH CROSS,
LALBAGH ROAD,
K S GARDEN
BENGALURU-560027
9. SRI N MANJUNATHA
S/O NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S MANJUNATHA ENTERPRISES,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
WP No. 27474 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.172, 3RD CROSS
3RD MAIN, B CHANDRAPPA NAGAR
ADUGODI
BENGALURU-560030
10.SRI VASUDEV M GUNTAPALLI
S/O MUTHYALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.758, FLAT NO.4, 2ND FLOOR,
AHMEEYA GELEYARA BALAGA LAYOUT,
CHIKKASANDRA, HESARAGHATTA ROAD
CHIKKABANAWARA
BENGALURU-560090
11.SRI SANTOSH KUMAR M
S/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S SMT ENTERPRISES,
NO.17, KEMBATHALLI BANNERGHATTA ROAD
GOTTIGERE, BENGALURU-560083
12.SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A
S/O ANANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SHISHIR ASSOCIATES,
NO.290/41, 1ST FLOOR,
10TH MAIN, 38TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR, 5TH BLOCK
BENGALURU-560041
13.SRI SURESH KUMAR N
S/O NARASIMHA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SURYA PRAKASH ENTERPRISES,
NO.188/23, 13TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
V S GARDEN JJR NAGAR
BENGALURU-560026
14.SRI BALAKRISHNA C
S/O CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
WP No. 27474 of 2025
HC-KAR
M/S SRI CKR ENTERPRISES
NO.475,
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN
V S GARDEN JJR NAGAR
BENGALURU-560026
15.SMT PALLAVI S N
W/O JAGANNATH C T
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S MATHASHREE ENVIRO CLEANING AGENCY
NO.121, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS
V S GARDEN,
IPD SALAPPA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560026
16.SMT M GOWRAMMA
W/O MANJUANTH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SREE MATHA SHREE ENTERPRISES,
125, 2ND MAIN,
2ND CROSS, V S GARGEN JJR NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560026
17.SRI HEMANTH KUMAR R
S/O R RAMA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S HEMANTH ENTERPRISES,
203, SRIMAN SRI LAKSHMUI NARAYANA NILAYA,
1ST CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
GREEN HOUSE,
REMCO LAYOUT
HAMPINAGAR
BENGALURU-560104
18.SRI RAVIPRASAD
S/O S G MUTHYALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SURYACHANDRA ENTERPRISES,
280, 17TH CROSS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
WP No. 27474 of 2025
HC-KAR
OLD GUDDADAHALLI
DEVARAJ URS NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560026
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.MAYA HOLLA., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. BENGALURU SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
I FLOOR, BBMP BUILDING,
THIMMAIAH ROAD
MILLERS TANK BUND AREA,
VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560052
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-1
BENGALURU SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
I FLOOR, BBMP BUILDING, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
MILLERS TANK BUND AREA
VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560052
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION,
QUASHING THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL/INVITATION FOR
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
TENDERS BEARING NO.DGM-1/BSWML/TEND/08/2025-26 DATED
30.07.2025 IN RESPECT OF ALL 33 PACKAGES (ANNEXURE F),
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGEMENT-1, BENGALURU
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.10.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, Order or
direction, quashing the request for
Proposal/Invitation for Tenders bearing No. DGM-
1/BSWML/Tend/08/2025-26 dated 30.07.2025 in
respect of all 33 packages (Annexure-G) issued by
the Deputy General Management-1, Bengaluru Solid
Waste Management Limited, the fourth respondent
herein;
ii. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just,
including the cost of this Petition, in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. The petitioners claim to be Municipal Solid Waste
Management contractors providing services to the
BBMP in various capacities over the years, including
primary collection of segregated wet waste, sanitary
waste and street sweeping waste, as well as
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
secondary transportation of segregated wet and
street sweeping waste in various wards of Bangalore
city. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the
request for proposals/invitation for tender dated
30.07.2025 in respect of 33 packages issued by
respondents No.4 to 11.
3. Sri.Udaya Holla., learned Senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners, would submit that;
3.1. The first tender had been issued on
28.09.2022, having 89 packages for 243 wards.
An addendum to the said tender had been
issued on 18.10.2022, but the number of
packages continued to be the same. A second
tender was issued on 21.01.2023 again for 89
packages, which came to be challenged in WP
No.2935 of 2023, which in turn came to be
disposed of on 22.04.2025, upholding the
tender dated 07.11.2024 issued during the
subsistence of the writ petitions.
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
3.2. A Review Petition had been filed in respect to a
said order in RP No.239 of 2025, during the
pendency of which a tender was called for the
collection and transfer of solid waste only, but it
is not for processing. On that basis, he
contends that a fresh tender was issued. This
tender is only for 33 packages, and as such,
there are changes which have been made in the
methodology of issuance of tenders.
3.3. An affidavit had been filed by a respondent
No.2 on 13.11.2024 in WP No.2935 of 2023,
wherein it had been categorically indicated that
the notification dated 07.11.2024 for 89
packages had been scientifically designed. The
question of making any change thereto would
not arise, since that would amount to the
affidavit being a false one.
3.4. His submission is that it is only taking note of
the said affidavit dated 13.11.2024 that this
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
Court recorded the submission of the learned
Advocate General that all the petitioners and
contractors would be permitted to participate in
the new tender, and as such, declined to
interfere with the withdrawal of the second
tender and issuance of a new third tender
notification.
3.5. Instead of proceeding with the said matter, the
respondent No.2 withdrew the third notification
dated 07.11.2024 and has issued a fresh tender
notification on 30.07.2025, which is contrary to
the observations made by this Court in W.P.
No.2935 of 2023 and R.P. No.239 of 2025. The
conduct is illegal and contrary to the affidavit of
the respondent No.2 dated 13.11.2024.
3.6. By way of the fourth tender now, the
respondents have restricted the packages to 33
in number, each of the packages consisting of
7-8 wards, thereby increasing the cost of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
tender from Rs.400 lakhs/Rs.500 lakhs to
Rs.1400 lakhs/Rs.2500 lakhs.
3.7. His submission is that by increasing the amount
put to tender, the eligibility criteria for a
tenderer to participate in the tender have also
been increased. Thereby, the interest of the
tenderers has suffered, inasmuch as they may
not be in a position to satisfy the eligibility
requirement of the new tender. Not only is the
requirement of work earlier carried out
increased, but the requirement of the number
of equipment and personnel has also increased,
which contractors like the petitioners would not
be able to comply with, thereby resulting in
them being eliminated from the field of
contention.
3.8. The petitioners, having necessary experience in
carrying out Municipal Solid Waste Management
Work and having done so for the BBMP for last
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
nearly a decade, their annual turnover in regard
to those works is between Rs.3 to 12 crores per
ward, now by increasing the value by clubbing
number of wards the financial eligibility of each
of the petitioners to satisfy the financial
eligibility would not be possible.
3.9. Though the tender notification enables bidders
to bid as a group of entities (consortium of a
maximum of 5 members), even if the financial
ability of all five is taken into consideration,
some of the packages would be out of the reach
of that consortium also.
3.10. He relies upon the manual issued by the
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India and submits that the Ministry of Urban
Development has thought it fit to decentralise
Municipal Solid Waste Management to
Community Level Waste Management Systems.
The preference for a decentralised system vis-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
à-vis a centralised system. The action on the
part of the respondents in clubbing several
wards and increasing the cost of the package
has resulted in making the petitioners ineligible
both technically and financially. The same has
been done to favor large contractors at the cost
of micro, small and medium enterprises.
3.11. He relies upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Highways
Authority of India vs. Gwalior-Jhansi
Expressway Limited1, more particularly para
20 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference;
20. While considering the relief claimed by the
respondent (claimant), the same should have been
tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the
tender process, especially when the validity of the
tender document has not been put in issue or
challenged before any competent forum. Going by the
terms and conditions in the tender documents, as
already alluded to in para 10 above, there is no tittle of
doubt that the Right of the claimant (respondent) to
match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come
into play only if the respondent was to participate in
2018 (8) SCC 243
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting
tenders from the interested parties. The objective of
tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent
mechanism but to encourage competition and give
equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result
of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain
wording of the eligibility clause in the tender
documents and the incidental stipulations make it
explicit that the respondent was required to participate
in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid
(technical and financial). The fact that a deeming
clause has been provided in the tender document that
if the respondent was to participate in the bidding
process, it shall be deemed to fulfil all the
requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP,
being the existing concessionaire of the project, does
not exempt the respondent from participating in the
tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the
documents made it obligatory for the respondent to
participate in the tender process to be considered as a
responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to
participate in the tender process and, more so, despite
the express terms in the tender documents, validity
whereof has not been challenged, the respondent
cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any
right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in
the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be
allowed to make grievances about the non-fulfilment
or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the
tender documents concerned. The respondent who
chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be
heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the
eligible bidders who had participated in the tender
process on the basis of the written and express terms
and conditions. At the culmination of the tender
process, if the respondent had not participated, in law,
the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required
to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and
conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and
conditions specified in the subject tender document,
the respondent has no case whatsoever.
3.12. By relying on Gwalior, Jhansi, Expressways
case, he submits that the object of tender
process is not only to adhere to transparency
but also encourage competition.
3.13. His submission is that if the size of the tender is
increased, there is only large business houses
who could participate which would not
encourage competition but in fact would stifle
competition.
3.14. He relies upon decision of this Court in
Electronic Enterprises vs. Karnataka Power
Corporation Ltd.2, more particularly para
Nos.9, 13 and 17 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference;
9. It is quite clear that reference to the experience in
atleast two different thermal stations, in the NIT
(Notice Inviting Tender) - (Annexure - A) was by way
of guidance only and not as a qualification. The nature
ILR 1994, Kar 125
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
of the work itself indicates that, it was to design,
manufacture, etc., and instal a Public Address
System. Reference to the Thermal Stations was
necessary to indicate the peculiar condition under
which the PAS shall have to function. If a tenderer
had an experience of designing and installing such
PAS in any other place, under conditions similar to
that of a Thermal Power Station, there is no reason to
disqualify such a tenderer. In fact, the scope of the
eligibility restriction should not be stringent to reduce
the area of competition. Courts discourage a
restriction which reduce the competition and deprives
opportunity to qualified persons from competing in
the tender proceedings. It is in the areas where
special expertise is required or the nature of the work
is such that only a particular experience has to be
insisted upon as a qualification, restriction as to
eligibility is technically adhered to. Further, if from the
NIT, tender forms, and other stipulations, it is
revealed that a class of persons are denied eligibility
to submit tenders, but, while considering the tenders,
the said restriction is ignored the resultant decision to
award the contract would be vitiated by unfairness
and unreasonableness, because, there will be a denial
of opportunity to several others who could have
equally competed for the contract, along with the
person who was awarded the contract ultimately.
Here, those who did not submit the tenders are
prevented from submitting the tenders by the
language of the NIT, tender form or other announced
stipulations.
13. There is a difference between the case where a
person is excluded from an opportunity to carry on a
trade, and a case where, a person is permitted to
enter the competition in the field of trade. In the
former case, opportunity is denied, resulting in the
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution; similarly,
exercise of the fundamental Right to trade under
Article 19(1) is prevented; competition is inherent in
the trade and in fact efficiency and service to the
general public will be increased only by a proper
competition in the trade. That is why, an opportunity
created to expand the scope for competition among
the traders is not restrained in the exercise of Writ
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
jurisdiction. However, if a person is not meted out an
equal treatment and is denied of a fair consideration
and opportunity given to one outweighs the skeleton
opportunity to give to another, it may be a case of
unfairness inviting Judicial scrutiny under Article 14 of
the Constitution. For example, if the State invites
competition and while considering the respective
cases of the rivals, case of one of them is not looked
into at all, or a different test or consideration is
applied in favour of one, denying the benefit of such a
consideration to another, the ultimate decision of the
State selecting the favoured one would be invalid,
because, such a selection is the result of an unfair
process in arriving at the decision. Normally, it is not
in the public interest to allow such a 'decision taking
process' to be adopted by the State.
17. Exclusion of any person, from the competition is
an exception; general rule is to permit every one to
offer the tender, subject to the requirement of basic
eligibility and qualification.
3.15. By relying on Electronic Enterprises case, he
submits that eligibility criteria should be such
that competition is to be encouraged. The
eligibility restriction should not be stringent to
reduce area of competition. The Courts should
discourage such restriction which would reduce
competition and deprive opportunity to qualified
persons from competing in tender proceedings.
His submission is that, so long as the tender
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
values are lesser there will be more competition
and in view of more competition, both the State
and the general public would benefit.
3.16. He relies upon the decision of this Court in
Esteco Coal Services Limited vs. The
Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and
Others3, more particularly para No.27 thereof,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference;
27. The object of prescribing any qualification while
inviting tender, as stated above, is to ensure that the
tenderer is capable of prompt and efficient
management of the work, without committing any
default or delay in the execution of the work, and to
minimise the area of unhealthy competition, and not to
prevent healthy competition by the qualified persons
who are capable of executing the work. Therefore,
merely because the movement of coal has to be made
firstly through rail, secondly through sea and
thereafter again through rail route, does not mean that
one should have the experience in the movement of
coal only through rail-sea-rail route. Therefore, the
stipulation in sub-clause (b) of Clause 4 of the Tender
Notification/document, Annexure-M, which insists the
additional qualification that in addition to possessing
the requisite experience in movement of coal through
rail-sea route, the tenderer must also have the
experience in movement of coal through rail-sea-rail
route, is liable to be struck down as being highly
arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the Right
1996 SCC Online Kar 413
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
3.17. By relying on the Esteco Coal Services case,
he submits that in that case, where a tender
was for bulk supply of coal to a Thermal Power
Station, the eligibility condition requiring the
tenderer to have five years' experience in
moving coal to a large thermal station by sea-
rail-sea route was held to be unconstitutional.
Relying on the said judgment, he submits that
the clubbing of wards to increase the value of
the contract is also unconstitutional.
3.18. Thus, he submits that the writ petition is
required to be allowed. The fourth tender dated
30.07.2025 issued in respect of all 33 packages
at Annexure-G is required to be quashed.
Consequently, he submits that a tender for 89
packages, as was done earlier, has to be
issued.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
4. Sri.Shashi kiran Shetty., learned Senior counsel
appearing for Respondents No.2 and 4 submits that;
4.1. The first tender having been issued on
28.09.2022 and opened on 02.11.2022, it was
found that there were no competitive bids
received for the said tender. The second tender
was issued on 21.01.2023, when WP No.2935
of 2023 and WP No.26089 of 2023 had been
filed challenging the blacklisting of certain
contractors.
4.2. The said second tender came to be withdrawn
on 08.07.2024. On 07.11.2024, a separate
integrated tender was issued for the collection
and transport of solid waste, as well as the
processing of the solid waste in WP No.2935 of
2023 on 03.12.2024, upholding the withdrawal
of the second tender and issuance of the
separate integrated tender. However, by the
time the Order was passed in the said matter,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
the separate integrated tender had lapsed on
23.01.2025.
4.3. It is for this reason that another tender came to
be issued on 28.05.2025 for the collection and
transport of solid waste. After issuing the said
tender, some of the petitioners filed a Review
Petition in RP No.239 of 2025 on 16.06.2025
seeking review of the judgment in
WP No.2935 of 2023, wherein the fourth tender
dated 28.05.2025 was also challenged.
4.4. His submission, therefore, is that the tender
dated 28.05.2025 was issued on account of
lapsing of the tender dated 07.11.2024, and no
fault can be found with the respondents in
relation to the issuance of such a tender. This
has also been upheld by this Court vide its
Order dated 19.06.2025 in RP No.239 of 2025,
wherein this Court observed that the fresh
tender issued on 28.05.2025 was for the very
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
same purpose that the earlier tender was
notified, thereby permitting the respondents to
go ahead with the second tender.
4.5. Affidavits having been filed by the concerned,
the Review Petition was disposed of on
30.07.2025. His submission is that the tenders
which have been issued from time to time have
been properly issued by the respondents. The
tender earlier issued was for secondary
transportation of the transport stations to
designated processing centres and processing
and disposal of the same. The aspect of
issuance of tender notification is under the
complete discretion of the tender issuance
authority, so long as the tender is issued in a
proper manner, no fault could be found with
such issuance of tender.
4.6. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment
dated 16.12.2024 in WP No.202094 of 2024 &
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
Connected matter, wherein the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various
Cases have been curated in Para 20 thereof,
said Para 20 is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference;
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the
applicable law in the manner, mode and
circumstances in which a Court can intervene in a
tender matter in several of the judgments rendered
by it. They are detailed as under:-
20.1 Judicial review is not concerned with matters of
economic policy and the Court ought not to
substitute its judgment for that of the
legislature or its agents. If the decision is
reasonably based on evidence, then Court
ought not to intercede. The function of the
Court is therefore limited to see that lawful
authority is not abused. The function is not to
appropriate to itself the task entrusted with
such authority, so long as there is no abuse of
the authority and the authority is within the
limits, as also the decision and actions taken
are in good faith, the Court ought not to
interfere with the policy of the State.
[Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. Ltd. vs RBI, (1992) 2 SCC
343]
20.2 The modern trend is for the Courts to exercise
judicial restraint in administrative or economic
matters where decisions have been taken by
persons who have expertise in the field. The
power of judicial review vested with
Constitutional Courts in contractual matters is
not one of an appeal but is only to exercise of
power to ascertain if there is no wrongdoing by
the executive. The Courts not having any
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
expertise in such fields ought not to try and
substitute its wisdom for that of the State or
its agencies. The Government should
necessarily have the freedom to contract and
any action taken by the State and/or its
agencies can be tested by the application of
the Wednesbury's principles of reasonableness
and as also ascertaining whether the decision
and action on part of the States or its
authorities are free from arbitrariness, not
affected by bias or actuated by malafides.
Again, needless to say all these aspects are
required to be established by the person
alleging that there is arbitrariness, bias or
malafides. [Tata Cellular vs Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 651]
20.3 The Government is not bound by the previous
policy. It can always revise its policy, so long
as the policy is in public interest and such
change in policy is not an abuse of power.
[PTR Exports vs Union of India, (1996) 5
SCC 268]
20.4 It is not permissible for the Court to hold that
some corrections have to be made in a
contract when in fact there is no allegation of
malice or ulterior motive and/or when the
Court has not found any malafide or
favouritism in the grant of contract in favour of
the successful tenderer. [Asia Foundation &
Constructions Ltd vs Trafalgar House
Constructions (I) Ltd. & Ors. (1997) 1
SCC 738]
20.5 State can choose its own method of arriving at
commercial decisions. It can fix its own terms
of invitation to tender, enter into negotiation
before finally accepting an offer. It was also
free to grant any relaxation for bonafide
reasons if the tender conditions permit such
relaxation. The only manner such a decision
can be challenged is if the State or its
instrumentalities do not adhere to the norms,
standards and procedures laid down and it is
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
only in respect of this aspect that powers of
judicial review can be exercised. Merely
because there is a defect found in the decision
making process, the Court ought not to
interfere. Even in such cases, the Court ought
to exercise great caution and exercise the
power of judicial review only in public interest
and not merely on a legal issue, since any
delay in issuance of tender and completion of
the work would adversely affect public
interest. [Air India Ltd. vs Cochin
International Airport Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 2
SCC 617]
20.6 Economic policies are not amenable for judicial
review unless such policy is demonstrably
shown to be contrary to any statutory
provision of the Constitution. [BALCO
Employees Union vs Union of India,
(2002) 2 SCC 333]
20.7 The policy of the Government is not amenable
for judicial review. Whenever there are
matters affecting policy and/or required
technical expertise, the Court ought to leave
the matter of the decision making to those
who are qualified, unless the policy or action is
inconsistent with the Constitution and the
laws, for arbitrary or irrational or would
amount to abuse of power. [Federation of
Railway Officers Association vs Union of
India, (2003) 4 SCC 289]
20.8 Unless the action of Tendering Authority is
found to be malicious and a misuse of
statutory powers, the tender conditions in a
invitation for tender are unassailable. No
person, can claim a fundamental right to carry
on business with the Government. All that a
petitioner can claim for is that while bidding for
or competing in a contract/tender, he should
not be treated unfairly or discriminated
against. [Association of Registration
Plates vs Union of India & Ors., (2005) 1
SCC 679]
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
20.9 Bad faith and non-application of mind in regard
to exercise of power on part of the employer
would have to be established by the petitioner
since the burden is on the person who seeks to
make such an allegation. If the same were not
to be so discharged, this Court would be
required to presume that even if there is a
deviation made in relation to the terms of the
contract, the employer has such power of
relaxation or making a deviation and so long
as such relaxation or deviation is made by the
employer/tendering authority in the interest of
the project and/or in the interest of the public,
the same ought not to be interfered with and
the Constitution Courts would have to excise
judicial restraint. [B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.
vs Nair Coal Services Ltd & Ors. (2006) 11
SCC 548]
20.10 The Government has power to frame and
reframe, change and re-change, adjust and re-
adjust policy. Such change or re-change
cannot be declared illegal or arbitrary or
ultravires the Constitution only on the ground
that the earlier policy has been given up. The
State is required to have play in the joints, so
as to make such changes, modifications or
improvements from time to time as may be
necessary to better achieve the objectives of
the Government. [Dhampur Sugars
(Kashipur) vs State of Uttranchal (2007)
8 SCC 418]
20.11 Fixation of value of the tender is entirely within
the purview of the executive. Formulation of
condition of a tender document and awarding a
contract is also within the purview of the State
authorities unless the fixation of value is
indicated to be arbitrary or unreasonable and
the conditions formulated are found to be
malicious and a misuse of statutory powers,
the Courts ought not to interfere. [Michigan
Rubber (India) Ltd. vs State of Karnataka
& Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216]
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
20.12 The economic factors which are considered by
the State cannot be questioned as arbitrary,
capricious or illegal, so long as the same is
bonafide, so long as the decision making
process is proper and correct, the decision
itself cannot be questioned. The State and its
instrumentalities would be at liberty to make
such decisions after weighing the advantages
and disadvantages. [Arun Kumar Agarwal
vs Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 1].
20.13 Technical bids are prepared by technical
persons which would ensure objectivity.
Insofar as those technical aspects are
concerned requiring technical expertise,
constitutional Courts ought not to interfere
subject again however that the decision made
is neither arbitrary, malafide or adopted to
favour any particular entity so long as there is
no infirmity in the same, this Court ought not
to interfere. [Montecarlo Ltd. vs NTPC Ltd.
(2016) 15 SCC 272]
20.14 The owner or the employer of the project,
having authored the tender documents, is the
best person to understand and appreciate the
requirements. Constitutional courts must defer
to such understanding of the owner or the
employer unless there is a malafide or
perversity established by a person challenging
such tender. [Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
(2016) 16 SCC 818]
20.15 The terms and conditions of invitation to
tenders are within the domain of the Tender
Making Authority and are not open to judicial
scrutiny unless they are arbitrary,
discriminatory or malafide. Thus, as such,
apart from those circumstances, the invitation
to tender is not open to judicial scrutiny, the
same being in the realm of contract. [Airport
Authority of India vs Centre for Aviation
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
Policy, Safety & Research & Ors (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 1334]
20.16 Writ Court should not easily interfere in
commercial activities just because public
sector undertakings or government agencies
are involved. Unless substantial public interest
was involved or the transaction was malafide.
The High Court exercising powers under Article
226/227 of the Constitution is not competent
to decide the technical issues in a tender
matter. These are best to be left to the
employer who has formulated the tender to
choose and apply such conditions as the
employer believes required in a particular
matter. A contract being a commercial
transaction, evaluating of tenders and
awarding contracts is also an essential
commercial function. So long as such
evaluation and awardal is in public interest,
Courts ought not to by exercise of judicial
review interfere in the matter. [Silppi
Constructions Contractors vs Union of
India, (2020) 16 SCC 489]
20.17 Bald allegation that the tender conditions have
been drafted to suit a particular bidder, cannot
be accepted unless there is sufficient pleadings
and evidence to satisfy such an allegation. It
is for the Petitioners to have made good the
statement by stating as to for whose benefit or
which tenderer's benefit the conditions have
been tweaked and how such tweaking of
conditions would work favourably to such a
tenderer. The State and its instrumentalities
issuing several thousands of tenders, the
bonafide action of the State cannot be
questioned in each of those tenders by making
reckless and unsubstantiated allegations.
[Uflex Ltd. vs State of T.N., (2022) 1 SCC
165]
20.18 Courts ought not to permit a petitioner
challenging a tender to make a mountain of a
molehill on technicalities. The Court would
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
always have to consider whether the decision
making process is proper or not. The
methodology of requiring a particular
document to be submitted in a particular
format, the requirement of minimum turnover
value of the tender is all within the domain of
the employers/tendering authority so also are
the wording of the required documents being
the Bank guarantee, performance guarantee or
the like. These are aspects which the
employer can fix on the basis of its own
requirement taking into consideration the
nature of work, the possibility of breach being
committed and the manner in which the State
and/or its instrumentalities need to be
protected on account of breach if any by the
successful tenderer which would ultimately
enure to the benefit of the general public. So
long as the requirements are the same for
each and every bidder, one of the bidders
cannot attribute discrimination and/or
malafides without categorically establishing the
said allegations. Merely by contending that
there is a change and/or that there is a
different process adopted would not suffice for
this Court to interfere in tender matters unless
the Petitioners were to establish that the same
was malafide, arbitrary, irrational and contrary
to applicable law and the Constitution.
[National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. vs
Montecarlo Ltd. and Ors (2022) 6 SCC
401]
4.7. By relying on M/s Shiv Shakthi Dal
Industries' case, he submits that the
guidelines which have been laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court would be equally applicable
to the present matter and this Court ought not
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
to intervene in respect of tender matters, when
the grounds raised are only that there is a
consolidation of wards which has been made,
thereby increasing the financial eligibility as
also the technical eligibility and the same would
deprive the petitioners to participate in the
proceedings.
4.8. His submission, by referring to the tender
documentation, is that the present tender
allows for consortium bidding, subject to a
maximum of five members. If five contractors
were to get together, they would satisfy both
the financial and technical eligibility, thereby
enabling them to participate in the tender.
4.9. His submission is that the mere clubbing of
awards and an increase in the financial or
technical requirement will not make the
petitioners ineligible; they could always
participate in the tender as a consortium. The
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
reason why a tender has been issued by
clubbing of several wards is to have better
administration and better solid waste disposal,
since in the past it has been found that with
smaller areas being allotted to each tenderer,
administration and management had become
inefficient. His submission is also that, going
forward, a robust system for monitoring as well
as a grievance redressal system would be set
up.
4.10. Thus, he submits that the change from one
ward to multiple wards, an increase in the
financial outlay and/or the technical
requirement, would not in any manner
adversely affect the petitioner contractors; it
cannot be held to be in violation of either Article
14 or Article 19-1G of the Constitution of India.
The tender does not favour bigger
businessmen, and as such, he submits that the
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
writ petition is required to be dismissed by
permitting the respondents to complete the
tender process as early as possible.
5. Smt.Anukanksha Kalkari, learned HCGP appearing for
respondent No.1 and Sri.S.H.Prashanth, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3, also adopt
the submission of Sri.Shashi kiran Shetty., learned
Senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 4.
6. Heard Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners, Sri.Shashi Kiran
Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondents No.2 and 4, Smt.Anukanksha Kalkari,
learned HCGP for Respondent No.1, and
Sri.S.H.Prashanth, learned counsel for Respondent
No.3. Perused papers.
7. In the background of the above submissions, the
points that would arise for consideration are;
1. Whether the change of the tender from
ward-wise to multiple wards can be said to
be arbitrary or unreasonable?
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
2. Can the change in the financial aspect of
the tender and the technical requirement
can be said to be manifestly arbitrary on
account of the said change excluding the
petitioners, thereby violating Article-14 of
the Constitution of India?
3. Whether, if there is any legal infirmity in
the nature of the tender or its process
requiring interference at the hands of this
Court?
4. What Order?
8. I answer the above points as under;
9. Answer to point No.1: Whether the change of
the tender from ward-wise to multiple wards
can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable?
9.1. The contention of Sri.Udaya Holla, learned
Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners is
that the first tender issued on 28.09.2022 was
having 89 packages for 243 wards, so was the
addendum as also the second tender issued on
21.1.2023.
9.2. It is only now that the packages have been
reduced to 33 each having 7 to 8 wards. Thus,
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
his contention is that the base cost of the
tender has been increased from Rs.400/Rs.500
lakhs to Rs.1400/2500 lakhs and on that
ground, he submits that the shifting of the
tender from ward wise to multiple wards is
arbitrary and unreasonable made to favour
larger contractors.
9.3. I am unable to accept the said submission
inasmuch as it is in the administrative
discretion of the tender issuing authority to
consider the manner in which the tender is
required to be implemented. What is also
required to be seen is the administrative
efficiency in carrying out Solid Waste
Management. Obviously, judicial notice could be
taken of the fact that the Solid Waste Disposal
System has not been up to the mark and the
Waste Management in Bangalore continues to
suffer.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
9.4. The submission in this regard by Sri.Shashi
Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Respondents No.2 and 4 is that it is in order
to bring about that efficiency that fewer tenders
are being issued, so that each of them could be
monitored in a proper manner. His submission
also being that more efficiency would be
brought about, the roles and responsibilities
having been identified and assigned it is in the
interest of the general public that number of
tenders are brought down to a minimum.
9.5. Insofar as the contention that such a decision
has been taken arbitrarily without any reasons.
His submission being that the aspect of bringing
about efficiency, having considered the same,
cannot be said to be arbitrary and, in that
regard, he relies on the principles enumerated
and curated in the decision in M/s Shiv
Shakthi Dal Industries' case.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
9.6. The contention placed by Sri.Shashi Kiran
Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondents No.2 and 4 insofar as efficiency is
concerned, and the same being in the interest
of the general public, being the prerogative of
the tender issuing authority, I am of the
considered opinion that the same would be
required to be accepted. Moreso, when ex-
facise the same is reasonable and logical
inasmuch as Respondents No.2 and 4 can more
effectively monitor the Solid Waste Disposal
System.
9.7. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that
the change of the tender from ward-wise
to multiple wards cannot be said to be
arbitrary or unreasonable given the
circumstances which have been taken into
account by the tender issuing authority.
10. Answer to point No.2: Can the change in the
financial aspect of the tender and the technical
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
requirement can be said to be manifestly
arbitrary on account of the said change
excluding the petitioners, thereby violating
Article-14 of the Constitution of India?
10.1. The submission of Sri.Udaya Holla, learned
Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is
that the change from ward-wise to multiple
wards would bring about a change in the
financial aspect as well as the technical
requirement and it is for that reason that this
change, which excludes the petitioners, would
have to be held to be violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. Reliance has been
placed on the decisions in Esteco Coal
Services Limited and Electronic
Enterprises, those decisions were rendered in
a situation where the eligibility criteria had
been changed and made stringent to reduce the
area of competition.
10.2. In the present matter as rightly contended by
Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
appearing for Respondents No.2 and 4, though
the size of the project/tender has been
increased, it is always open for five of the
tenderers to come together to satisfy the
technical and financial requirements.
10.3. The said submission would have to be accepted,
more so when eighteen of the contractors have
come together to file the above Petition, they
could always come together to submit a joint
tender as a consortium. All their works, which
have been done, could be taken for
consideration together in order to consider the
satisfaction of the technical requirement of the
earlier work done, as also the financial
requirement of the quantum of work done by
clubbing the total work done by all the
consortium members.
10.4. Merely because a tender was being issued for a
smaller quantity would not require the tender to
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
continue to be issued for a smaller quantum or
quantity with the change in times and for better
management of the tenders, the tender issuing
authority would be entitled to make such
changes as are required, which has been done
in the present case to better achieve Solid
Waste Disposal.
10.5. There is nothing which has been placed on
record to indicate that the change has been
made to favour any particular bidder, tenderer
or contractor. In that background the
submission made by Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondents No.2 and 4 would have to be
accepted.
10.6. So, I do not find any infirmity in the tender
issued and I answer point No.2 by holding
that the change in the financial and/or
technical requirement will not come in the
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
way of the petitioners coming together to
submit their bid as a consortium, and
therefore, the same would not be violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. Answer to point No.3: Whether, if there is any
legal infirmity in the nature of the tender or its
process requiring interference at the hands of
this Court?
above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the
nature of the tender or its process requiring
interference of the hands of this Court.
12. General Directions:
General Directions for the Establishment of an
Integrated Technology-Driven Solid Waste
Management Governance Framework for Bengaluru
Contextual Foundation
13. This Court takes judicial notice of the persistent and
widespread failure of the Respondent authorities to
effectively implement the statutory framework
governing municipal solid waste management. The
city of Bengaluru, despite its stature as a global
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
metropolis, is plagued by the chronic issue of
"garbage blackspots," which are areas of
recurrent, unauthorised waste dumping that pose a
significant and ongoing threat to public health and
the urban environment. This Court is of the
considered opinion that the management of solid
waste is not merely a statutory duty of the municipal
corporations but a profound constitutional obligation,
inextricably linked to the fundamental Right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
14. The current state of affairs constitutes a grave and
continuing public nuisance. The situation is
exacerbated by pervasive reports of irregular and
inefficient waste collection services, which leave
citizens with few viable options for proper disposal,
thereby fostering a culture of illegal dumping among
individuals and establishments alike.
15. There is a critical and urgent need for a proactive,
systemic, and technologically advanced solution to a
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
problem that has been allowed to fester for far too
long. The Right to a clean, hygienic, and
dignified environment is not a privilege to be
bestowed but a right to be enforced.
Statutory Imperatives and Dereliction of Duty
16. The statutory foundation for a clean urban
environment is well-established and unambiguous.
The Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2016,
promulgated under the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986, impose clear and non-negotiable duties upon
municipal authorities and waste generators. These
duties include, inter alia, the mandatory segregation
of waste at its source into three distinct streams--
wet (biodegradable), dry (non-biodegradable), and
domestic hazardous waste--a foundational step that
has been pioneered in Bengaluru but requires
consistent and rigorous enforcement. The Rules
further mandate a system of door-to-door collection
and the scientific processing and disposal of all
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
collected waste, moving away from the archaic and
environmentally ruinous practice of landfilling
untreated waste.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, through a
catena of judgments, held that the Right to a clean,
healthy environment is an integral and inalienable
facet of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The current state of waste management in the
city, characterised by overflowing bins, ubiquitous
blackspots, and the constant threat of vector-borne
diseases like Dengue, Chikkangunia etc., is a direct
and continuing infringement of this fundamental
Right. The opacity and inefficiency that currently
plague the system of solid waste management are an
affront to this Right.
18. It is in this context that governance must not only be
done but must be seen to be done. Mere contractual
arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
are insufficient. In an era where technology offers
unprecedented tools for transparency and
accountability, the continued reliance on archaic,
non-transparent methods is no longer tenable. The
establishment of a public-facing, data-driven digital
dashboard, therefore, becomes an indispensable tool
of modern urban governance--transforming the
system from one of reactive complaint redressal to
one of proactive, verifiable service delivery. The
integration of technology with robust administrative
will and citizen participation can lead to
transformative outcomes. Therefore, to give full
effect to the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and
to ensure that the citizens of Bengaluru are provided
with an efficient, transparent, and accountable
system of solid waste management, this Court
deems it necessary to issue the following detailed
and specific directions.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
19. This Court is cognizant that any proposed solution
involving widespread surveillance must be rigorously
tested against the touchstone of the fundamental
Right to Privacy, as authoritatively settled by the
nine-judge constitutional bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019
(1) SCC 1.
20. The Puttaswamy judgment holds that any state
action that infringes upon privacy must satisfy a
tripartite test: (i) it must be sanctioned by law
(Legality); (ii) it must be in pursuit of a legitimate
state aim; and (iii) it must be proportionate to the
object of the law, ensuring a rational nexus between
the means adopted and the objective, and that the
measure is the least intrusive necessary to achieve
that aim. These directions are issued to meet this
high constitutional standard.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
21. The directives contained herein are designed to be
constitutionally robust and compliant with the
principles laid down in Puttaswamy's case:
21.1. Legality: The SWM Rules, 2016, the KMC Act,
1976, and the BBMP SWM Bye-laws collectively
empower and obligate the municipal
corporation to enforce cleanliness, prevent
public nuisance, and penalise offenders. The
use of technology, including CCTV surveillance,
as an enforcement tool is a modern method of
exercising these long-standing statutory
powers. The surveillance is not arbitrary but is
a means to enforce a pre-existing and valid
legal framework. Similar to the installation of
traffic cameras and radars for enforcing traffic
rules.
21.2. Legitimate State Aim: The systemic failure of
the existing manual oversight system, where
non-compliance with SWM rules has become
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
the norm rather than the exception, provides
the "legitimate state aim" required under the
Puttaswamy's test. The endless cycle of
citizen complaints, official acknowledgment of
"gaps" in service, and reactive, often theatrical,
enforcement drives demonstrates that a
technological intervention is not merely
desirable but necessary to uphold the law,
protect public health, and secure the
fundamental Right to a clean environment for
all citizens. The objective is not surveillance for
its own sake, but the creation of a clean and
healthy urban environment, which is a core and
legitimate function of the state.
21.3. Proportionality and Necessity: This Order is
founded on the principle of proportionality.
Failure/s at one point in the waste management
chain have cascading effects; for instance, the
lack of segregation at source renders
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
processing plants inefficient, and irregular
collection directly causes the creation of
blackspots. Therefore, any effective
intervention cannot be piecemeal; it must be an
integrated system that monitors the entire
lifecycle of waste to identify and rectify failures
at every stage. The measures prescribed,
particularly the use of CCTV, are narrowly
tailored to monitor public spaces where illegal
dumping occurs and critical infrastructure
points within the SWM chain. The directives
scrupulously avoid intrusion into private
residences and are governed by a strict
Standard Operating Procedure that includes
data minimisation, access controls, and a fixed
retention period, ensuring it is the least
intrusive means necessary to achieve the
stated objective.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
22. It is hereby directed that the Chief Commissioner of
the Greater Bangalore Authority, along with the
Zonal Commissioners of each of the Corporations
coming under the GBA, with the assistance of the
Principal Secretary, e-Governance Department,
Government of Karnataka, shall forthwith commence
the design, development, and implementation of a
single, unified, and integrated digital platform for
Solid Waste Management for the city of Bengaluru.
23. This unified platform is mandated to avoid the
creation of multiple, fragmented applications or
portals for different SWM services. The governing
principle for this initiative shall be "One City, One
Platform" for all SWM-related interactions, ensuring
a seamless and coherent experience for citizens,
operators, and administrators alike.
24. The directives in this Order, encompassing the digital
dashboard, mobile application, GPS tracking,
weighbridge integration, and CCTV surveillance, are
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
not to be viewed as separate or standalone projects.
They are intrinsically linked components of a single,
cohesive governance ecosystem. The CCTV
surveillance network shall function as a primary
data-gathering and enforcement sensor network,
feeding critical, real-time information directly into the
analytical and operational modules of the unified
digital platform. Citizen grievances about blackspots
lodged via the platform's mobile application will
inform the strategic deployment and monitoring
focus of the surveillance system. Conversely,
evidence of violations captured by the CCTV network
will be processed, and penalties will be issued and
tracked through the enforcement modules of the
same digital platform. This integrated architecture is
fundamental to the success of the entire initiative,
ensuring that data flows seamlessly from the "eyes"
on the ground (CCTV, GPS) to the "brain" of the
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
operation (the administrative dashboard) for
analysis, action, and accountability.
25. To ensure effective, expert-driven, and timely
implementation of these directions, it is hereby
directed that a "Nodal Oversight and
Implementation Committee for SWM
Surveillance" (hereinafter "the Committee") shall
be constituted by the Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka, within a period of fifteen (15) days
from the date of this Order.
26. The Committee shall be a multi-disciplinary body
constituted to ensure a holistic and expert-driven
approach. Its composition is deliberately designed to
pre-empt jurisdictional conflicts and break down the
bureaucratic silos that typically impede complex
urban projects. By integrating expertise from various
essential domains, the project is elevated from a
purely municipal or engineering task to one that is
embedded with legal, technical, and social
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
accountability from its inception. The presence of law
enforcement addresses the penal aspects of
enforcement, while the state pollution control board
provides environmental science expertise.
27. The Committee shall comprise the following
members:
27.1. The Chief Commissioner, Greater Bangalore
Authority (GBA) - Chairperson.
27.2. Zonal Commissioners of the 5 Corporations
forming part of GBA
27.3. The Managing Director/CEO, Bengaluru Solid
Waste Management Limited (BSWML) - Member
Secretary.
27.4. A senior officer, not below the rank of Deputy
Commissioner of Police, nominated by the
Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru.
27.5. A senior scientist or environmental officer,
nominated by the Chairman of the Karnataka
State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB).
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
27.6. A technical expert in the field of large-scale
CCTV surveillance, network architecture, and
data management.
27.7. An Additional Advocate General or the Chief
Law Office of the GBA to advice on legal issues.
27.8. Such other persons or officers as the Chief
Secretary may deem fit.
28. The Committee shall be the single-point authority
responsible for the comprehensive planning,
procurement, installation, and operational oversight
of the entire integrated SWM technology project as
mandated by this Order. Its functions shall include,
but not be limited to:
28.1. Overseeing the comprehensive mapping and
prioritisation of surveillance zones.
28.2. Finalising the technical specifications for all
hardware and software as per the standards,
ensuring compliance with all relevant
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
government procurement orders and
notifications.
28.3. Framing, notifying, and periodically reviewing
the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
surveillance operations and data management,
ensuring its strict adherence to constitutional
principles.
28.4. Acting as the appellate authority for grievances.
28.5. Submitting quarterly compliance reports to this
Court, ensuring transparency and accountability
in the implementation process.
Architecture of the Integrated Digital SWM Platform
29. The unified digital platform shall be designed with a
multi-tiered architecture to cater to the specific
needs of all stakeholders, presenting distinct
interfaces for the public, for operational staff, and for
administrative oversight. This platform shall consist
of a comprehensive web-based dashboard and a
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
corresponding, fully-featured mobile application for
citizens.
30. This citizen-facing tier shall be designed for
maximum transparency, ease of use, and public
engagement. It shall, at a minimum, include the
following modules and functionalities:
30.1. Live Vehicle Tracking: A real-time, map-
based interface, accessible to all citizens,
displaying the current location of waste
collection vehicles operating in their respective
wards. This feature shall also provide an
Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) for collection at
the citizen's locality, thereby fostering
predictability and accountability.
30.2. Performance Scorecards: An intuitive, easy-
to-understand public dashboard displaying key
performance metrics for each ward and for each
SWM contract awarded. This shall include, but
not be limited to, daily collection status
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
(percentage of households covered), source
segregation compliance rates, number of
garbage vulnerable points (blackspots)
identified and cleared, and average grievance
resolution time. This feature makes
performance publicly visible, comparable, and
holds officials and contractors directly
accountable to the citizens they serve.
30.3. Integrated Grievance Redressal System: A
single, streamlined module for citizens to report
all SWM-related grievances, such as missed
collections, overflowing bins, illegal dumping, or
non-segregation. Every complaint lodged must
be accompanied by a geo-tagged photograph of
the issue, which the application shall facilitate.
Upon submission, a unique docket number shall
be generated and communicated to the
complainant via SMS and in-app notification for
tracking purposes.
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
30.4. Complainant-Verified Closure: To prevent
the "accountability gap" where grievances are
prematurely closed by officials without actual
resolution, this system shall incorporate a
mandatory closure protocol. A grievance ticket
shall only be marked as "Resolved" and
officially closed after the original complainant
verifies through the application that the issue
has been addressed to their satisfaction. Should
the complainant dispute the resolution, the
ticket shall be automatically reopened and
escalated to a higher authority. This is a non-
negotiable feature essential for building and
maintaining public trust.
30.5. Information Hub: A dedicated section
providing clear, multi-lingual, and pictorial
information on Bengaluru's specific waste
segregation protocols, schedules for different
types of waste collection (e.g., sanitary, e-
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
waste), and a map of nearby recycling centers
or dry waste collection centers.
The Operational Command and Control
Dashboard
31. This tier shall be designed for SWM contractors,
vehicle operators, and field supervisors to ensure
efficient execution and monitoring of on-ground
tasks. It shall include:
31.1. GIS-Based Route Management: A
Geographic Information System (GIS) based
module displaying pre-defined, optimised
collection routes for every vehicle. The system
must provide turn-by-turn navigation and
generate real-time alerts to supervisors and the
central control room in the event of any
deviation from the assigned route, thereby
ensuring comprehensive coverage and
preventing missed areas.
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
31.2. Real-time Task Assignment: Citizen
grievances lodged through the app shall be
automatically converted into actionable tasks
and assigned to the relevant field supervisor
and crew in real-time, with a pre-defined
Service Level Agreement (SLA) for resolution.
The Administrative and Strategic Oversight
Dashboard
32. This strategic-level interface is for BBMP officials and
policymakers for city-wide performance monitoring,
data analytics, and planning. It shall feature:
32.1. City-Wide Live View: A comprehensive, GIS-
based map providing a "single pane of glass"
view of the entire SWM operation, displaying
the real-time location and status of all SWM
assets (vehicles, transfer stations, processing
plants).
32.2. Performance Analytics: A powerful analytics
module with drill-down capabilities, allowing
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
officials to monitor Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) from the city level down to the zone,
ward, and individual vehicle level.
32.3. Grievance Analytics: A dashboard to analyse
grievance data, including tracking resolution
times, SLA compliance rates, and generating
spatial heatmaps to identify recurring problem
areas requiring targeted intervention.
32.4. Waste Processing & Disposal Analytics:
This module represents a paradigm shift
towards data-driven environmental
management. The dashboard must be
integrated in real-time with all weighbridges at
transfer stations and waste processing facilities.
This will provide an accurate, automated
accounting of the entire waste stream, tracking
metrics such as tons of wet waste composted,
bio-CNG produced, dry waste sent for recycling,
and inert waste sent to landfill, thereby
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
quantifying progress towards "Garbage-Free"
and "Zero Landfill" objectives.
Governance by API and Data-Driven
Accountability
33. The architecture of this platform is intended to
institute a fundamental shift in municipal
governance, moving away from manual, often
unreliable, paper-based reporting towards a system
where performance is measured by immutable digital
data streams. This "governance by API" makes
accountability direct, verifiable, and automated. To
this end, the Respondents are directed to undertake
necessary administrative reforms to support the
digital platform, including mandating the use of the
official digital platform for all operational monitoring
and reporting. Crucially, payments, incentives, and
penalties for contractors and staff must be linked
directly and automatically to the performance data
and KPIs captured by the administrative dashboard.
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
For example, a contractor's payment shall be
contingent upon automated verification of 100%
route adherence via GPS data and confirmed tonnage
delivery via integrated weighbridge data. This
removes subjective discretion from the system and
ensures that the easiest path to remuneration is the
correct and complete performance of duties.
Technological Mandates
34. To underpin this data-driven framework, the
following technological mandates shall be followed:
34.1. GPS/AVL: All vehicles, whether owned by the
BBMP or its contractors, engaged in any part of
the SWM process (primary collection, secondary
transport, etc.) must be equipped with
functional GPS/Automatic Vehicle Location
(AVL) devices that feed data to the central
dashboard in real-time.
34.2. Weighbridge Integration: All weighbridges at
all SWM facilities (transfer stations, processing
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
plants, landfills) must be fully computerised and
integrated with the central dashboard via
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to
ensure automated, real-time, and tamper-proof
data transmission of waste quantities.
Directives for Surveillance Infrastructure and
Enforcement
35. Comprehensive Mapping and Phased Rollout: A
data-driven, phased rollout is essential for the
logistical and financial feasibility of this project. An
attempt to implement a city-wide installation
simultaneously would be unmanageable and prone to
failure. The categorisation detailed below creates a
strategic, phased implementation plan that targets
the most visible and problematic aspects of the
waste crisis first, generating immediate public impact
and building momentum. This approach allows for
lessons learned in Phase I to be applied to the
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
subsequent phase, ensuring a more efficient and
effective city-wide deployment.
35.1. City-Wide GIS Survey: The Committee shall,
within sixty (60) days from the date of this
Order, commission and complete a
comprehensive, ward-wise GIS-based survey to
identify and map all locations requiring CCTV
surveillance. This survey shall be a scientific
exercise, utilising existing BBMP data on
garbage blackspots, municipal infrastructure
maps, and inputs from local health inspectors,
marshals, and residents' welfare associations to
ensure its accuracy and completeness.
35.2. Categorisation of Surveillance Zones: The
identified locations shall be categorised for a
phased implementation plan as follows:
35.3. Phase I (Highest Priority):
35.3.1. Category A: Known and Potential
Garbage Blackspots. This includes all
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
currently identified garbage blackspots
and vulnerable locations prone to
becoming new ones (e.g., vacant plots,
areas under flyovers, peripheries of
lakes). The primary objective is
deterrence and clear identification of
offenders.
35.3.2. Category B: Waste Transfer and
Aggregation Points. This includes all
official secondary collection points, waste
transfer stations, and Dry Waste
Collection Centres (DWCCs). The
objective is to monitor operational
efficiency, prevent spillage, and ensure
compliance with segregation norms.
35.4. Phase II (Priority):
35.4.1. Category C: Processing and Disposal
Facilities. This includes the perimeters,
gates, and weighbridge areas of all
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
waste processing facilities and landfills.
The objective is to ensure operational
transparency and prevent unauthorised
access or dumping.
35.4.2. Category D: High-Density Waste
Generation Areas. This includes the
public peripheries of major commercial
hubs, markets, and large institutional
bulk waste generators. The objective is
to monitor compliance by bulk
generators and prevent indiscriminate
dumping from commercial
establishments.
36. Technical Specifications and Installation
Standards: The adoption of robust, minimum
technical standards is crucial to prevent the failure of
the project due to substandard technology, to ensure
that the collected footage is of sufficient quality to be
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
admissible as evidence, and to guarantee operational
reliability in harsh outdoor urban environments.
37. Mandatory Standards: All CCTV cameras, recording
equipment, and associated infrastructure procured
and installed pursuant to this Order shall, at a
minimum, conform to the specifications as the
Committee may specify, which shall include 4K
colour night vision waterproof cameras which shall
directly upload on a real-time basis the video stream
to the cloud capable of real-time viewing at the
command centre, and such other specifications based
on technological advancements.
38. Installation Protocols: Cameras shall be installed
in a manner that maximises the field of view for the
intended surveillance purpose while scrupulously
minimising any intrusion into private properties.
Cameras designated for monitoring public streets or
blackspots must be positioned and angled to avoid
capturing the interiors of private residences,
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
including doorways, windows, and balconies. This
directive is issued to uphold the sanctity of the
private, residential space, a principle that has been
repeatedly affirmed by the judiciary.
Governance Protocol for System Operations and
Data Management (The SOP)
39. Framing and Notification of the SOP: The
Puttaswamy's Case does not impose a blanket
prohibition on surveillance but demands that any
such measure be regulated by a procedure that is
fair, just, and reasonable. The Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) mandated herein constitutes that
procedure. It is the most critical part of this Order,
transforming a potentially intrusive technology into a
constitutionally compliant regulatory tool. The
specificity of these directives--such as a fixed data
retention period, strict access controls, and
mandatory public notification--is what makes the
infringement on privacy "proportionate" to the
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
legitimate state aim of ensuring a clean and healthy
environment. Each clause of the SOP should be direct
answer to the constitutional query: "How is this
measure the least intrusive means necessary to
achieve the stated objective?".
40. Therefore, the Committee shall, within ninety (90)
days from the date of this Order, frame and notify a
comprehensive SOP for the management of the SWM
Surveillance System. This SOP shall be a public
document, accessible to all citizens, and must be
designed to give full effect to the privacy-protecting
principles enunciated in Puttaswamy's case.
41. Binding Components of the SOP: The SOP must
contain, inter alia, the following binding provisions:
41.1. Central Control Room (CCR): A secure,
access-controlled CCR shall be established at
the BBMP/BSWML head office. This CCR will be
the nerve center for monitoring the live feed
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
from all cameras and for the management of all
recorded data.
41.2. Public Notification: The public must be made
aware of the surveillance. To this end,
mandatory and conspicuous signboards shall be
installed at all locations under surveillance.
These signboards shall be bilingual (Kannada
and English) and shall clearly state: "This area
is under CCTV surveillance for Solid Waste
Management enforcement.".
41.3. Data Retention Policy: In adherence to the
principle of data minimisation, all video footage
shall be stored for a period not exceeding
seventy-five (75) days from the date of
recording. Upon the expiry of this period, the
data shall be automatically and securely
overwritten or deleted, unless it has been
specifically flagged, preserved, and
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
watermarked as evidence in a specific violation
case that is under adjudication.
41.4. Access Control Matrix: Access to both live
feeds and recorded footage shall be strictly
limited to designated and trained officials of the
BBMP/BSWML and the Police, on a role-based,
need-to-know basis. A detailed, immutable, and
auditable electronic log of all access instances--
including the official's identity, date, time,
duration, and specific purpose of access--shall
be maintained automatically by the system.
41.5. Data Security: All stored footage must be
protected by strong, end-to-end encryption,
both at rest and in transit. The storage servers
must be physically located within the sovereign
territory of India and must be secured against
unauthorised physical and cyber access through
firewalls and other appropriate security
measures.
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
41.6. Prohibition on Unauthorised Disclosure:
The disclosure, sharing, or dissemination of any
footage to third parties or the media is strictly
prohibited, except as may be explicitly required
under a specific provision of law or by a direct
and formal order of a competent court. Any
breach of this provision shall be subject to
stringent disciplinary and legal action.
Enforcement, Penalties, and Adjudication
42. Evidence-Based Enforcement Protocol: To build
legitimacy and ensure long-term public acceptance,
the enforcement mechanism under this Order must
be transparent, evidence-based, and uniform. By
providing offenders with the video evidence against
them and establishing a clear, accessible grievance
redressal mechanism, the system moves from being
perceived as an arbitrary punishment to a
transparent regulatory process. This shift is crucial
for fostering a culture of voluntary compliance.
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
43. The designated officials at the CCR shall be
responsible for systematically reviewing footage to
identify violations. For each identified violation, a
digital case file shall be created, which must include
date and time-stamped video clips or high-resolution
still images that clearly depict the violation. Based on
this verified evidence, e-challans or show-cause
notices shall be issued to the identified offenders.
These notices must be accompanied by the
evidentiary material, either as an attachment or
through a secure, time-limited web link, allowing the
alleged offender to view the evidence against them.
44. Standardised Schedule of Penalties: To ensure
uniformity, prevent arbitrary action, and maintain
fairness, penalties for violations identified through
the CCTV network shall be levied strictly in
accordance with the SOP and the applicable Bye-
laws, giving it a strong legal and practical foundation.
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
45. Grievance Redressal Mechanism : A robust and
accessible grievance redressal mechanism is
fundamental to the fairness of this system.
Accordingly, an online portal and a dedicated helpline
shall be established within one hundred and twenty
(120) days for citizens to:
45.1. Contest a penalty notice by submitting a formal
representation along with any supporting
evidence.
45.2. Report any perceived misuse of the CCTV
system, including allegations of targeted
surveillance or violations of privacy.
45.3. All such representations shall be decided by a
designated Grievance Redressal Officer (of a
rank not less than a Zonal Joint Commissioner)
within 15 working days. An appeal against the
decision of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall
lie with the Nodal Oversight and
Implementation Committee, whose decision
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
shall be final. This two-tiered mechanism
provides a crucial avenue for recourse and
reinforces the overall fairness of the system.
Implementation Framework and Judicial Oversight
46. Consolidated Implementation Timelines: The
directives contained in this Order shall be
implemented strictly as per the following schedule,
where 'T' is the date of this Order:
46.1. T + 15 days: Constitution of the Nodal
Oversight and Implementation Committee.
46.2. T + 60 days: Completion of the city-wide GIS-
based survey and mapping of all surveillance
zones.
46.3. T + 90 days: Framing and public notification of
the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
Surveillance Operations and Data Management.
46.4. T + 180 days (6 Months): Completion of
procurement, installation, and
operationalisation of CCTV systems in all
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
Category A and B locations (Phase I), along
with the foundational development and pilot
launch of the core digital platform in three
representative wards.
46.5. T + 365 days (12 Months): Completion of
procurement, installation, and
operationalisation of CCTV systems in all
Category C and D locations (Phase II),
accompanied by the city-wide rollout of the
validated digital platform and a sustained public
awareness campaign.
Compliance Reporting
47. The Nodal Oversight and Implementation
Committee for SWM Surveillance shall prepare
and, through its Member Secretary, submit a
Detailed Project Report (DPR) in line with the
aforesaid directions to this Court within a period of
six weeks from today. A dedicated nodal officer, not
below the rank of a Zonal Commissioner, shall be
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
appointed to oversee the implementation of these
directions and shall be responsible for reporting
progress to the Committee and this Court.
48. The Nodal Oversight and Implementation
Committee for SWM Surveillance, through its
Member Secretary, shall file a detailed quarterly
compliance report before this Court. The first such
report shall be filed ninety (90) days from the date
of this Order. The report shall detail the progress
made under this Order, challenges faced, statistical
data on violations detected and penalties levied, and
remedial actions taken.
49. This Court shall continue to monitor the
implementation of this Order by way of a continuing
mandamus. The matter is to be listed for review
before this bench every four months to ensure strict
and timely compliance with all directives issued
herein.
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
50. This Order is passed in the paramount interest of
justice and for the protection of the environment and
public health, which are integral to the fundamental
Right to life of every citizen. All respondent
authorities are directed to ensure strict and
unwavering compliance with the letter and spirit of
this Order.
51. List this matter for reporting compliance after Six
weeks.
52. Answer to point No.4: What order?
above, no grounds being made out, the Petition
stands dismissed.
52.2. However, re-list on 10.12.2025 for filing the
first compliance report.
52.3. After the pronouncement of the Order, Learned
Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the last
date for submission of the Bids may be
extended to 10th November, to enable the
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44337
HC-KAR
Petitioners to submit the same as a consortium.
Accepting his request, the respondents are
directed to extend the last date for submission
of the bid to 10.11.2025.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
