Haridwar Ropeway Tender: Uttarakhand HC Says 10-Year Same-Technology شرط Could Create Monopoly For Existing Operator, Directs State To Act Under Ropeways Act Within 3 Months

The petitioner, an elected corporator of the Municipal Corporation, Haridwar, challenged two letters issued by the Municipal Commissioner to the State Government concerning preparation of tender conditions for operating and maintaining the Maa Mansa Devi Ropeway.

The letters proposed that the State PPP Cell examine the technical aspects of the RFP and raised concerns that eligibility conditions adopted by the Municipal Board could restrict competition and harm the Corporation’s financial interests.

The Board’s resolution required bidders to have operated at least two ropeways, including a ropeway using similar technology for at least ten years.

The respondents contended that the petition was proxy litigation for the existing operator, M/s Usha Breco Ltd., which had previously filed a petition seeking substantially similar relief.

The petitioner sought quashing of the letters and an order restraining further progress of the tender process.

The Court considered the Uttarakhand Ropeways Act, 2014 (Act No. 02 of 2015), described as comprehensive legislation addressing matters including inspection, safety, and tariff determination.

It also considered clause 4.1.1 of the Uttarakhand PPP Policy, which provides for the administrative department to refer a proposal to the PPP Cell for initial comments and discussion, followed by preparation of a preliminary project report.

The Court treated competition in public tendering as relevant to preventing eligibility criteria from creating a monopoly for an incumbent operator.

It further held that a petitioner challenging an order must demonstrate illegality in the impugned decision and a resulting cause of action.

The Court found that the letter requesting the PPP Cell to examine the ropeway’s technical aspects was consistent with the PPP Policy and did not disclose illegality.

It also concluded that the Board’s experience requirements could eliminate competition and confer an advantage on the existing operator, which had operated the ropeway for more than four decades.

Given that the subject was covered by the Ropeways Act, the Court considered the Board’s authority to adopt the resolution debatable and rejected the challenge founded on that resolution.

The petitioner had not shown any illegality in the letters or a sufficient cause of action; the Court also considered the respondents’ proxy-litigation objection in that context.

It disposed of the petition with a direction to the State Government to exercise its powers under the Uttarakhand Ropeways Act, 2014, to ensure public safety and safeguard the State’s revenue interests, and to take an appropriate decision within three months.