Coming down heavily on the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the Bombay High Court Friday stayed contracts awarded for bridge and road related works to tainted contractors. This includes the contract for work on the Hancock bridge, a critical east-west connecting road overbridge in Central Mumbai. Pointing out that the process of issuing showcause notices to these companies had been delayed with an ulterior motive, to give the contractors some leeway, the court observed that public authorities could not be allowed to use their powers against public interest. A vacation bench of Justices Bhushan Gavai and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), questioning the awarding of fresh contracts for bridge and road related works to tainted contractors. The PIL had said that a criminal case had been lodged against the contractors, after enquiries into their previous contracts with the BMC. [related-post] The petitioner’s lawyer had argued that such irregularities could not have taken place without active and passive participation of officials from the BMC. The BMC standing committee had on May 4 given contracts to two contractors to build the Hancock Bridge in Byculla, a bridge on the Lokhandwala creek in Andheri, a bridge on the Mithi river in BKC and a railway crossing bridge at Vikhroli. “Though the BMC commissioner had prima facie found the firms indulging in corrupt practices and ordered action against them, the corporation awarded several contracts in favour of these firms,” said the court. Senior counsel Anil Singh, appearing for the BMC, told the bench that preliminary work on the projects had been started and these contracts had been awarded before the issuance of showcause notices to the contractors. “The works are of urgent nature and stopping them might cause inconvenience to the people at large,” said Singh. The HC, however, pointed out that companies, whose names were in the process of being blacklisted, should not have been awarded contracts. “The BMC commissioner had started the process of blacklisting the firms as per law. It is surprising to note that though the FIR in the matter was lodged on April 27, it took 21 days for the BMC to issue showcause notices for blacklisting and suspending the contractors’ registrations. There was no reason for the officials to issue notices after 21 days,” said the court. The HC has asked the Mumbai municipal commissioner to investigate as to why the showcause notices were issued 21 days after he asked for action against the contractors. “It should be noted that the standing committee had passed a resolution on May 4, just 10 days after the BMC commissioner’s directions. Once the registration is suspended, the contractor should not be allowed to enter the tender process. It cannot be believed that the standing committee was unaware of the BMC commissioner’s directions on April 25,” observed the HC, adding that the BMC rules provided that the contractor be not awarded any new project or entry into the bidding process, after suspension of registration. Justice Gawai noted that if the “suspension had taken place immediately, the bids of the contractors, even under process, could have been rejected. The process of notice and suspension was delayed with an ulterior motive to give an umbrella to the contractors.” “We find that if we fail to pass an interim order now, the contractors will get a reason and say they spent a particular amount on the work. This order shall be eligible till a regular bench hears the case,” said the court. The matter has been kept for hearing on June 9.
