'Long-Standing Contractors Cannot Claim Exclusive Right To Continue On Account Of Potential Loss Of Livelihood': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that long-standing contractors cannot claim an exclusive or perpetual right to continue merely on the ground that their livelihood depends on the activity. The Court observed that ensuring a fair and transparent tender process providing equal opportunity to all similarly placed persons cannot be curtailed to preserve existing contractors' interests.A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a writ petition filed by the Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-operative Society challenging the Shoe-Shine Policy, 2018 and the open tender process initiated by the Railways. The petitioner, a cooperative society engaged in shoe polishing work at railway stations since 1985, contended that the new policy and tender process threatened the livelihood of its members who had been carrying out the activity for decades. The petitioner argued that earlier policies were welfare-oriented and provided preference to societies comprising members from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and weaker sections, along with provisions ensuring minimum wages. It was contended that the 2018 policy removed such safeguards and introduced an open tender system without any preference, thereby diluting the original objective and exposing long-serving workers to displacement.The Court examined the evolution of the policy framework from 1999 onwards and noted that while earlier policies included preference clauses and welfare considerations, subsequent changes progressively introduced competitive bidding and ultimately culminated in the 2018 policy providing for open tendering among registered societies of shoe-shine workers.The Court held that the adoption of an open tender system promotes transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity, and cannot be faulted merely because it affects existing contractors. It observed that permitting exclusive continuation of the petitioner society would effectively create a monopoly and exclude other eligible societies from participation.Addressing the plea of livelihood, the Court acknowledged that members of the petitioner society had been engaged in the activity for a long period and depended on it for sustenance. However, it held that such consideration cannot override the requirement of a fair competitive process, especially when other similarly situated persons are also entitled to livelihood opportunities. It observed:“The members of the Petitioner Society are engaged as Shoe-shine workers for a considerable length of time, and it is true that they are not fit for taking up any other avocation or occupation, and definitely those who intend to continue with the same, cannot be deprived of their livelihood merely because the Contract would be gained by any other Society.”The Court found no arbitrariness in the policy or the tender process and held that the petitioner society is at liberty to participate in the tender and compete with others. It further observed that past experience of the petitioner could be given due weightage while evaluating bids, but such experience does not confer an exclusive right to continuation.At the same time, the Court noted that the 2018 policy had omitted the requirement of ensuring minimum wages to workers. It held that such omission was not appropriate and directed the Railways to include a condition in the tender ensuring payment of minimum wages in accordance with applicable law.Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the validity of the 2018 policy and the open tender process, while directing the Railways to consider the petitioner's experience and ensure compliance with minimum wage requirements.Case Title: Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. v. General Manager, Central Railway & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 1643 of 2022]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)138Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Long-Standing Contractors Cannot Claim Exclusive Right To Continue On Account Of Potential Loss Of Livelihood': Bombay High Court

Saksham Vaishya

Tags