Can’t supervise all ender matters: HC disposes KDMC ex-corporators PIL

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rapped an ex-corporator of Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without making the requisite disclosures

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rapped an ex-corporator of Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without making the requisite disclosures.

HT Image

“Rather than being an ex-corporator, what else have you done,” the court asked. “You can’t file a PIL without proving your requisite credentials,” the court added.

The bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Arif S Doctor hearing a petition filed by Minakshi Dhipode, an ex-corporator from Aadharvadi in the KDMC through advocate Rakesh Misar citing illegality and biases in the tender process with respect to the display of advertisement rights.

According to the petition, KDMC issued a contract in June 2022 for calling bids for advertising rights at 73 places within the Corporation’s east and west limits for three years. Subsequently, the bid of one Illuminate Associates, a partnership firm, was accepted since it was the sole bidder in the tender process. It is the case of Dhipode that KDMC made certain concessions for the firm which, if granted earlier, would have attracted more bidders. It was further alleged that the firm was exempt from filing certain documents, a concession which is usually not allowed.

The court, after hearing the petition questioned the credentials of the corporator filing such a petition without the requisite disclosures as to the bona-fides in the petition. The court further suggested that if the petition needs to be entertained, she will have to deposit ₹1 lakh which would be returned on acceptance of PIL.

The court further observed that “PILs are not meant for targeting individuals” and then remarked that “we can’t be supervisors of all small tender matters in every municipal corporation, councils and gram panchayats.”

Subsequently, the court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to make an exhaustive representation to the Director of Municipal Administration taking all the pleas which may be available to them. The court further clarified that if any action is proposed subsequently sufficient opportunity may be given to them to make their representation.