Mumbai: ‘Arbitrary’ BEST slammed for terminating contract of 40 E-buses

Mumbai: Observing that a public body must be transparent and fair, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport (BEST) for arbitrarily terminating a contract of procuring 40 new e-buses. The HC said the BEST should refrain from misusing its powers and instead must adhere to the obligations conferred upon it by the Constitution of India.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Naresh Patil and Justice Girish Kulkarni said, “Can it be so simple for a statutory authority to float a tender at public cost and complete the process by awarding a contract and then for reasons unknown to the contractor, terminate it? What happens to the invaluable rights of equality and freedom to carry out any profession?” The remarks was made in response to a petition filed by a Hyderabad-based private entity, which was awarded the contract to manufacture 40 e-buses (both air conditioned and non air conditioned).

The entity, which had won the tender, was awarded the contract after following the due process of law. The BEST issued a communication and suddenly terminated the contract citing a reduced subsidy by the Union government. The arguments of BEST however fell flat after the Union government informed the bench, it never asked BEST to terminate the contract. In fact they had suggested a ‘joint ownership’ of the buses. The bench in its order, noted the ‘misconduct’ of BEST by first terminating the contract and then floating fresh tenders for the same contract. “This shows that the firm on one hand was kept in dark on the fate of its contract and on the other hand the BEST was engaged in preparing for issuance of a new tender.

This was not expected of a public body,” the judges noted. The bench while quashing the termination communication, said, “To our mind, the actions, conduct and the approach of the BEST leaves no manner of doubt that it not only acted high handedly and arbitrarily in taking the impugned decision, but also attempted to abuse the process of law least expected from a public body.”