Himachal High Court Directs State To Descide Representation — Challange TO Policy That Limits Sanitation Tender Eligibility To Hospital Experience Only
The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla has today (10.12.2025) passed directions in CWP No. 19584/2025, filed by M/s Tania International Company (Proprietor: Sher Singh), which challenges Clause F(c) in the Notices Inviting Tenders issued by the Health & Family Welfare Department. Clause F(c) prescribes that only firms with prior experience of hospital sanitation within the State of Himachal Pradesh shall be eligible to tender for sanitation services in public health institutions.
Pursuant to the petition, the Court has recorded that a representation dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure P-8) was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, and observed that there appears to be no rational nexus between the restrictive eligibility clause and the stated objective of ensuring quality sanitation services. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents-State to take a decision on the representation within four weeks, and to ensure that any order rejecting the representation is accompanied by valid reasons.
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE
• Public procurement law and competition: The petition raises profound public-procurement and competition concerns by challenging an eligibility condition that excludes a large class of bona fide sanitation contractors who possess verifiable, statutory-compliant sanitation experience with Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and other government bodies.
• Functional equivalence and regulatory parity: The petition demonstrates that high-standard municipal/public sanitation contracts require compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and related hygiene and disposal protocols that are substantially similar to hospital sanitation requirements.
• Anti-competitive and exclusionary policy: Clause F(c) is alleged to produce cartelisation, narrow competition, and an artificial barrier to market entry—thereby imposing an avoidable cost on the public exchequer and denying equal opportunity to competent contractors.
• Principle of reasoned administration: The Court’s direction to the State to dispose the pending representation with reasons underlines the obligation of executive authorities to issue speaking orders that disclose rational basis for procurement policy choices.
ROLE OF ADVOCATE GANESH BAROWALIA
The matter has been placed before the Court by Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Ganesh Barowalia (in association with Advocate Verender Kumar). Advocate Barowalia has:
• Identified the legal and constitutional infirmities in Clause F(c), including its conflict with principles of reasoned classification under Article 14 and the freedom to practise trade under Article 19(1)(g).
• Demonstrated the functional equivalence between municipal/public sanitation contracts and hospital sanitation work, relying on statutory frameworks (MSW Rules, BMWM Rules) and documentary evidence (award letters, experience certificates).
• Pressed for immediate administrative reconsideration through a representation (dated 01.11.2025) and sought interim judicial protection to preserve competitive procurement.
• Secured judicial directions from the Division Bench on 10.12.2025 for a time-bound, reasoned decision by the State.
PRAYERS SOUGHT IN THE PETITION (SUMMARY)
• Quash Clause F(c) to the extent it bars counting of sanitation experience obtained outside hospitals for the purpose of tender eligibility; or, alternatively,
• Direct respondents to treat equivalent sanitation experience under government/ULB/public contracts as qualifying; and/or
• Direct re-evaluation of the petitioner’s bids and pass such consequential orders as the Court deems fit.
FACTS & TIMELINE (SELECT)
• Representation to Principal Secretary, H&FW Department: 01.11.2025 (Annexure P-8).
• Tenders issued for sanitation services across multiple health institutions: January 2025 (6 NITs).
• Technical rejection of petitioner’s bids: February 2025 (curable defects cited; petitioner alleges discriminatory application).
• Notices alleging forged experience certificate issued by respondent authorities: May–September 2025 (petitioner has filed replies).
• Writ Petition filed: 23.11.2025.
• High Court directions: 10.12.2025 — State to decide representation within four weeks.
PUBLIC INTEREST AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The outcome of this petition will influence how procurement authorities design eligibility criteria for essential public services. If the restriction is sustained without adequate justification, bona fide contractors with relevant, statutory-compliant sanitation experience will be excluded from participation — harming competition and value-for-money in public procurements. Conversely, a reasoned administrative decision that recognizes equivalent experience will enhance competition, lower costs, and support effective delivery of sanitation services in health institutions.
