Favouritism? GNIDA's Rs 241-crore trash tender under Allahabad high court scanner

Time of India

5 days ago

Noida: Greater Noida Authority's move to appoint a private agency for waste collection in Greater Noida West has come under scrutiny from Allahabad high court.
The contract — pegged at over Rs 241 crore — pertains to integrated mechanical sweeping, manual sweeping, door-to-door collection and transportation of waste in Zone 1 and 2 of Greater Noida (West).
The HC has restrained Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) from finalising any contract under the latest tender until further orders.
You Can Also Check:
Noida AQI
|
Weather in Noida
|
Bank Holidays in Noida
|
Public Holidays in Noida
The court is examining allegations that the bidding process was repeatedly cancelled and modified in a manner designed to favour one particular bidder and exclude others.
As an interim measure, a division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar ruled, "Although the tender process pursuant to RFP dated June 18 may proceed, no final decision shall be taken or contract awarded without leave of this court."
GNIDA has been granted two weeks to respond to the allegations and explain the rationale for cancelling previous RFPs and altering eligibility norms.
The matter will next be heard on Aug 11.
The court observed the allegations, if true, raise serious questions about the transparency of public procurement and compliance with judicial orders. The allegations pertain to the RFP and eligibility criteria.
The court, while hearing a petition filed by two private agencies on July 17, observed, "The allegations raised by the petitioners, if found to be true, have serious implications upon fair competition, transparency in public procurement and compliance with judicial orders."
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Cargo Ship Meets Pirates - Watch What the Captain Does Next!
Tips and Tricks
Undo
The court also took note of serious allegations that the Authority issued the request for proposal (RFP) five times in the span of a year, particularly the clause concerning consortium participation and financial eligibility criteria.
These changes, the petitioners allege, were arbitrary and appeared designed to disqualify them while giving undue advantage to a preferred bidder.
The first RFP was floated on July 2, 2024 and later modified through a corrigendum on Aug 24, allowing consortium bids.
However, it was cancelled due to only two bidders participating.
A second RFP was issued on Nov 6 with an expanded scope of work but without the provision for consortiums and was also later withdrawn.
A third RFP was floated on Jan 13, 2025 with the same project scope and again disallowing consortium bids.
Petitioners challenged this in the HC, seeking inclusion of consortiums, but the HC disposed of the petition after GNIDA informed it that it opened the technical bids and the tender process was in the final stage of finalisation.
However, on May 2, GNIDA issued the same RFP for the fourth time.
The two companies submitted a joint bid as a consortium, seeking that their application be accepted and considered on merits.
When the Authority did not address their submission, they again approached the HC.
On May 17, the HC directed the development authority to examine the prayer of the petitioners and take an appropriate decision. However, the Authority once again cancelled the fourth RFP on June 3 without addressing the petitioners' concerns.
The matter was again brought before the court, prompting the HC to seek clarity from GNIDA on June 9 regarding compliance with its May 17 directive. However, the Authority issued a fifth RFP on June 18, again excluding consortiums and slightly altering the eligibility criteria.
For instance, the required average turnover was increased from Rs 42.25 crore to Rs 44.10 crore — a change the petitioners allege lacks any rational justification and was intended to disqualify them.
"The eligibility conditions in the RFPs have been tinkered with in a manner that appears to be tailored to suit a particular bidder, to the exclusion of others. These minor, odd increases in financial turnover thresholds, without any rational basis or objective justification, appear to be made solely to render the petitioners ineligible and to favour another bidder. The figures are not rounded off, nor are they explained through any financial model or policy rationale, which strongly suggests that the changes are deliberate, artificial and discriminatory in nature," the petitioners said in their latest plea filed earlier this month.
Defending its actions, GNIDA informed the court that tendering was a matter of policy and administrative discretion.