A division bench of performing Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne added that merely as a result of the higher know-how entails further price in comparison with different accessible know-how, use of the higher know-how can’t be prevented.

“Storm water arch drains which are sought to be rehabilitated are more than 100 years old. Mumbai receives heavy monsoon every year and use of best possible technology for proper rehabilitation and maintenance of storm water arch drains would be of paramount importance. Mere incurring of extra cost over other available technology would not be a valid reason to eschew the better technology”, the court docket held.

The court docket upheld a situation in a young for storm water arch drainage rehabilitation floated by BMC (respondent no. 1) which required builders to make use of geopolymer trenchless know-how for the work.

The petitioner firm Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd. challenged the tender course of for rehabilitation of 100-year-old storm water arch drains in Mumbai together with 5 years of complete upkeep. The tender situation required use of geopolymer lining trenchless know-how.

The petitioner claimed that an American firm GeoTree Solutions (respondent no. 2) has developed GeoSpray geopolymer model and has a monopoly in use of geo polymer know-how. The tender circumstances are made to favour GeoTree Solutions as solely the bidders procuring the geopolymer know-how can be eligible to bid, the petitioner claimed.

Initially the tender situation supplied for “GeoSpray geopolymer technology”, however that was later changed with “geopolymer trenchless technology”.

The petitioner participated in pre-bid conferences however didn’t submit its mattress. It objected to make use of of solely geopolymer know-how. BMC went forward with the tender process and opened the technical and monetary bids. Therefore, the petitioner filed the current writ petition in search of cancellation of the tender course of.

The court docket famous that the tender situation gives for a particular know-how and never a specific model.

IIT Bombay in contrast Geopolymer Technology with Machine Wound Spiral Lining and Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute in contrast 4 applied sciences. Both opined that the geopolymer lining system is finest fitted to rehabilitation of storm water arch drains over the opposite applied sciences. Though they’ve used the GeoTree branded geopolymer know-how for his or her assessments, they haven’t really useful use of a specific model of geopolymer know-how, the court docket stated.

The court docket famous that the BMC just isn’t blindly counting on IIT’s report obtained by a 3rd occasion. Rather it independently solicited IIT’s opinion.

The tender course of for execution of labor of public significance can’t be interfered primarily based on surmises and conjectures, the court docket stated.

The court docket famous that the petitioner itself has introduced on document the existence of GeoKrete, one other model of geopolymer trenchless know-how. Therefore, the court docket rejected its rivalry that GeoSpray model has monopoly in use of geopolymer trenchless know-how.

The court docket stated that there isn’t any restriction on the bidders from buying the geopolymer know-how from any accessible supply.

Additional prices concerned in adopting chosen know-how wouldn’t lead presumption of favouritism in direction of GeoTree, the court docket stated including that GeoTree just isn’t even a bidder.

The court docket famous that there isn’t any restriction on bidders to obtain geopolymer know-how solely from GeoTree Solutions and held that the allegation of favouritism in direction of GeoTree is totally unfounded.

Therefore, the court docket didn’t discover arbitrariness, bias, or favouritism on BMC’s half and refused to intrude in BMC’s determination primarily based on knowledgeable opinion.

The court docket additional held that because the petitioner didn’t submit its bid, it’s a stranger to the tender course of and can’t problem it. It may have procured geopolymer trenchless know-how from accessible sources and took part within the tender course of, however select to not, the court docket famous.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 4209 of 2023

Case Title – Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.