Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope of Concessionaire’s Waste Management Obligations.


21 October 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Environment Protection >> Environmental Law  

A Notice Inviting Tender dated 17 October 2025, issued by a municipal authority for lifting and transportation of mixed waste in adverse conditions within Shahdara (South) Zone, was scrutinized in a recent order by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, a concessionaire engaged under an existing Concession Agreement, had sought to set aside the NIT on the ground that it violated the terms of that agreement and impinged upon its contractual rights.

On the other hand, the petitioner argued that as per Clause 10.7 of the Concession Agreement, it was entitled to collect all types of waste other than construction and demolition debris. On the contrary, the impugned NIT sought to confer similar rights on another contractor. It was submitted that offering a fresh tender for identical works was in violation of the binding agreement between the parties.

 

 

Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondent authority explained that the NIT was solely with respect to transportation of “non-conforming mixed waste,” a category different from what the petitioner was already obligated to do under the Concession Agreement or under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The scope of the concessionaire, the respondent argued, was limited to three categories of “conforming waste,” namely MSW, street sweeping material, and drain silt, and no more.

The position, as recorded by the Court during the hearing, and accepted by the petitioner, was to the following effect: The contention pertaining to dumping of collected waste at Secondary Collection Points was also gone through. The petitioner-respondent argued that the new tender would encroach upon its exclusive right to dump at SCPs. However, the respondent satisfactorily showed that the SCPs designated under the impugned NIT were distinct from the ones utilized by the petitioner. This distinction removed the alleged overlap in operational areas.

The Court, upon such elucidation, noted that the impugned NIT was without prejudice to the petitioner’s concession and did not violate its contractual rights. Having been so informed, counsel for the petitioner strove to treat the matter as disposed of, whereupon the Court closed the case.

This case is, therefore, an instructive example of how judicial intervention can avoid unnecessary overlap between the contractual and administrative domains. It simply reiterates that public authorities, while issuing fresh tenders, may do so, provided such new steps do not affect or duplicate existing contract rights. In the case of concessionaires, too, precisely defined scopes in contractual matters with regard to infrastructure and waste management projects assist in bringing clarity in those areas whenever new assignments are given.