The controversial decision to rope in private players for the maintenance of Church Street, which was later withdrawn after public outrage, had not been discussed at either the ward committee level or in the civic council. This breach of due process was discovered after activists submitted a Right to Information query.
Activists, who protested against ‘the operation and maintenance tender’ for Church Street, now argue that this is only the latest example of the frequent bypassing of the democratic process. Kshitij Urs, regional head, Action Aid, who led the Church Street protest recently, said the tender was not only for the maintenance of the road but also for its operation.
“How can such a major policy decision be made using an executive order, and bypassing the democratic process? It should have been discussed both in the local ward committee and the BBMP Council, and deliberated upon,” said Mr. Urs.
This is not the first time that such a major decision was taken without following the democratic process, he said. For instance, the decision to implement TenderSURE roads, which had been suggested by a group of activists, was taken by the then chief minister in 2012, without the BBMP weighing in on it. The way in which the TenderSURE was implemented had led to a debate on the planning and implementation of large projects.
Mayor R. Sampath Raj said, “The tender was a routine outsourcing of work by the BBMP and not a privatisation model at all. If it was indeed privatisation, I agree it had to be discussed in both the ward committee and the city council. But the whole issue has been misunderstood. We wanted to outsource the maintenance, as BBMP doesn't have the required vacuum clean and wash technology best suited for the maintenance of Church Street.”
