Karnataka HC sets 4-month timeline to complete solid waste tender process in Bengaluru
The Karnataka High Court has set a four-month timeline for the completion of the solid waste tender issued in November 2024 by the Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited (BSWML). The order was passed on April 22 by a bench consisting of Justice M Nagaprasanna and was recently made available.
In this case, a series of petitions had been filed by waste disposal contractors. A tender was originally issued for waste disposal in 2022 and upheld by the Karnataka High Court, after which the tender applications of several contractors were blacklisted or not accepted. The tender was then withdrawn before the stage of awarding, and a new one was issued in 2024.
The contractors argued that the withdrawal of the tender was a mala fide action and was not done for the reasons of economic viability alone, as argued by the state government. They argued that the original 2022 tender should have been taken to the logical conclusion. Counsels representing some other contractors stated that they had no issue with the cancellation of the original tender, but claimed that they had been blacklisted on 'frivolous' grounds and should be allowed to participate in the new one. The Advocate General had also stated that except for those blacklisted for misconduct or fraud, all others could participate in the tender.
The bench declined to interfere with the validity of the new tender, explaining, 'This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not sit in the armchair of experts to assess the price bids that had come about earlier or the reserve price. The only examination in the cases at hand was qua tenability of cancellation of tender. I find that cancellation of tender is based on sound reasoning and does not suffer from palpable or demonstrable arbitrariness.'
The court directed that the petitioners could participate in the new tender, which would have to be completed in four months. It also stated that the contractors could approach the court if the timeline was breached, and the matter would be viewed seriously.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Did Trump declare martial law amid LA riots? National Guard deployment sparks confusion
President Donald Trump on Saturday announced the deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to riots sparked by ICE raids. A White House press release said: "In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California. 'These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California's feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.' The decision has sparked tension with California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'purposefully inflammatory.' 'The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,' Newsom wrote on X. 'LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need,' he added. 'The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.' The announcement has caused confusion on social media, with some people mistakenly thinking the National Guard deployment means martial law was declared. The National Guard can be deployed by either a state governor or the President during emergencies like natural disasters or civil unrest. When activated by a governor, the Guard remains under state control. If federalized by the President, it operates under federal authority. Martial law, by contrast, is a rare and extreme measure in which civilian government is temporarily suspended, and military takes over key functions such as law enforcement, courts, and public administration. In the United States, martial law is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. It can be declared by the President during severe crises like rebellion, invasion, or total collapse of civil order. Unlike martial law, deploying the National Guard is a routine emergency response that supports civil authorities without replacing them.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state, use it sparingly: Top court
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order by a district magistrate to detain a moneylender who was allegedly indulging in illegal activities again after getting bail in four cases.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan questioned the contention of the detaining authority that the order was passed as the detainee was violating bail conditions in the cases, and noted that they should have instead moved the competent court seeking cancellation of the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature."The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate."Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention."We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala."Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was InMust Watch
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Who's really over-represented? Busting delimitation myths
The announcement of Census 2027 has sparked off a fresh debate on delimitation. The argument that it will penalise states that have controlled their population better is based on popularly held myths. Research this writer undertook on Census data since 1872 shows that all regions of India grew briskly in terms of population at different points of time, with the South growing faster till 1951, and North India picking up pace after that. Kerala was the first state to double its population between 1881 and 1931, and Tamil Nadu was the next. Kerala doubled its population yet again between 1931 and 1971, and then began to stabilise its population. While this may sound surprising to many, it's true, and follows the pattern demographic transition has taken the world over. Out of the four regions of India, the North grew at the lowest rate between 1881 and 1951. Its demographic take-off decade was the 1950s, precisely the period when 'population explosion' emerged as a serious global policy concern. The later demographic growth phase of the North was thus mistakenly seen as caused by social and cultural backwardness, and failure of family planning, without considering longer-term empirical evidence. In 1976, delimitation was frozen for 25 years on the basis of the 1971 Census, and the same was done in 2001 for another 25 years. So, the constitutional principle of 'one person, one vote, one value' no longer holds, and the value of a vote in Bihar is much lower than the value of a vote in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Policymakers will have to figure out how to reconcile the constitutional promise with this skew which will have only increased since 2001. Importantly, while the right to equality is one of the bedrocks of the Constitution, formal equality is abandoned by it only for the benefit of the more deprived and backward — subsidies to the poor and reservation for backward classes being an example — and never for the well-off. One argument that the debate on delimitation will thus have to confront is whether formal equality can be abandoned in favour of better-off groups, socially or geographically, and what it will mean for the Constitution. While this is for political players to decide, it is important that the debate takes place on an empirically sound basis. The North, meaning the Hindi belt, has not grown at a disproportionate rate vis-a-vis other regions of India, and its national population share has gone down from about 50% in 2001 to 46% in 2011. South India has grown rapidly for 100 of those 150 years, increasing its share from about 22% in 1881 to about 26% in 1951, maintaining it at around 25% in 1971, before going down in the last few decades. Over 1881-1971, the North had the lowest cumulative growth of about 115%, as compared to the South at 193%, West 168% and East 213%. Over 1881-2011, the North at 427% was again at the bottom, with the South at 445%, West at 500%, and East at 535%. The prevalent distorted perception arises from taking only the post-1971 period into account — when population growth in the South started slowing down with better social and economic indicators, even as growth in the less developed North and better-off states of the West picked up. Without considering principles of demographic transition that operate in most societies over the long term, a proper perspective on why populations of different regions of India — or, of the world for that matter — grow at differential paces during any given period won't develop. Culture may at best be a marginal influence on population growth patterns, which social and economic factors adequately explain. Any causal connection between family planning and population control in India is at best tenuous, mainly because when family planning assumed importance in the 1960s, some southern states had already grown at a rapid pace and were at or near their peak population growth rates. Therefore, they witnessed stabilisation from the 1970s and 1980s. Family planning was at best an associate factor. Moreover, relatively developed western India has shown good demographic growth over the last 150 years, increasing its population share and potential parliamentary representation. Today, North and West India are grossly under-represented, the East is almost even, while the South is heavily over-represented. While the average Lok Sabha constituency in the South has just about 21 lakh people, in the North it has around 31 lakh, and in the West 28 lakh. The real divide in representation isn't North vs South; it's more like the South versus the rest. Mishra, a historian, is the author of 'Demography, Representation, Delimitation: The North-South Divide in India' and joint director, Prime Ministers Museum and Library
