The Bombay High Court on Friday granted an interim stay on four Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) contracts to build bridges because the builders have criminal track records.
A vacation bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Jayashree Khadilkar, which said the contracts awarded by the BMC and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) have FIRs lodged against them. The PIL sought an investigation into this.
At the hearing, the HC asked the BMC whether there were any other bidders for rebuilding the bridges. The court also asked the civic body why it wanted to assign contracts to contractors with criminal backgrounds.
The BMC submitted an affidavit that stated on April 20, the municipal commissioner had directed the additional municipal commissioner to file an FIR against six contractors and two third party quality auditors. On April 27, an FIR was registered at the Azad Maidan Police Station against R.K. Madani, Relcon Infra Projects Ltd, Mahavir Road Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, J Kumar Infra Projects Ltd, K.R. Construction and R.P.S Infrastructure, Indian Register of Shipping (Industrial Service), and S.G.S India Pvt Ltd, the third party quality auditors. The affidavit further stated that on May 16, the BMC had issued a show cause notice to all the six contractors.
The court then questioned the civic body as to why show cause notices were issued only after 21 days of the FIR. The court said, it is surprising that though the FIR was lodged on April 27, it took 21 days for the relevant BMC department to issue a show cause notice for blacklisting and suspension of registration.
The contracts involve building of the Hancock bridge across the Mithi River, a vehicular bridge at the junction of Yari Road and Lokhandwala Complex and a road overbridge at Vikhroli railway station.
The court observed that the process was delayed with the ulterior motive of “giving an umbrella to the contractors.” The court also said, “We find that if we fail to pass an interim order now, the contractors can get a reason -- that they have spent a particular amount on completing the work.” The bench also said the dates speak for themselves, and stayed the four contracts till June 8.
The court also asked the civic body why it wanted to assign contracts to contractors with criminal backgrounds
