Locals allege tailor-made process to favour select few
MAPUSA
A contentious parking fee collection tender floated by the Candolim panchayat has come under judicial scrutiny, with local resident and businessman Vaman Shirodkar approaching the High Court alleging arbitrariness, favouritism and violation of constitutional principles.
The High Court has issued notices to the Candolim panchayat and other respondents and has posted the matter for hearing on May 4.
According to the petition, the Candolim panchayat had, for the first time from March 1, 2022, introduced a pay-parking system in its jurisdiction by appointing contractors through an auction process under Section 157 of the Panchayati Raj Act, with contracts awarded to the highest bidders.
Subsequently, fresh tenders were issued for the period 2026–2029 to collect parking fees at four locations within the panchayat area. However, controversy arose after bidders discovered a new eligibility condition – Clause 4 – mandating that participants must possess a minimum of two years’ prior experience in parking fee collection, specifically with the Candolim panchayat.
The petitioners, who had purchased tender forms on March 25 by paying Rs 10,000, contend that this clause drastically narrowed the pool of eligible bidders to a handful of existing contractors, effectively excluding new entrants.
They argue that despite submitting significantly higher bids, they were disqualified solely due to the experience requirement, while lower bids were accepted.
Terming the condition “arbitrary and malicious,” the petitioners claim it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification and denying equal opportunity to participate in public contracts.
They further allege that the clause was designed to favour a select few with alleged links to sitting panchayat members, leading to cartelisation and monopoly in parking fee collection.
The petition also highlights alleged financial losses to the panchayat, citing a drop in bids – from around Rs 2.4 crore in previous tenders to as low as Rs 1.6 crore for a prime location – due to restricted competition.
Additionally, the petition raises concerns over the absence of e-tendering despite the project value exceeding Rs 5 lakh, in violation of a Finance Department circular dated June 7, 2011.
It also points to the lack of technical evaluation, scientific revenue assessment, and approvals from competent authorities.
A legal notice seeking cancellation of the tender process was issued on April 7, but with no response from authorities, the petitioners moved the High Court seeking quashing of the tender and restoration of a fair, transparent bidding process ensuring a level playing field for all participants.
Advocate Rui Ferreira, along with Adv Joel Pinto, appeared for the petitioner.
This is the second writ petition filed in connection with the issue, as a previous contractor, also a local resident, had earlier approached the High Court with similar grievances. The High Court has now clubbed both petitions together for hearing.
