The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of a Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (MC) communication directing a private contractor to hand over city cleaning work to the civic body amid a dispute over allotment of a sweeping contract for Chandigarh’s southern sectors.
The interim order came on a petition filed by M/s Lion Services Ltd, which claimed it had emerged as the lowest bidder in a tender floated by MC for GIS-based mechanical and manual sweeping work.
Taking up the petition filed through senior advocate Gaurav Chopra, along with Rishabh Bajaj and Vardaan Seth, the division bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji issued notice of motion to UT Chandigarh and other respondents and adjourned the matter to July 8, while directing that the operation of the impugned May 23 communication would remain in abeyance.
Appearing before the bench, Chopra, argued that the Municipal Corporation had invited bids through a notice inviting tender dated December 31, 2025, for sweeping work in Chandigarh’s southern sectors. The company, which said it had been satisfactorily carrying out the work since 2016, participated in the process and was declared the lowest bidder.
The petitioner contended that the MC Commissioner had placed before MC’s General House an agenda note on April 7, proposing consideration of alternatives including cancellation of the tender, geographical splitting of the work, or execution by MC itself.
However, General House, through a unanimous resolution passed on April 8, allegedly rejected all such proposals and resolved that the tender be allotted immediately to the petitioner without waiting even for the meeting minutes.
The company alleged that despite the lapse of nearly one-and-a-half months, the resolution had not been implemented by the MC Commissioner. Instead, the impugned May 23 letter required the petitioner to hand over the cleaning work it had been executing under an extended earlier contract.
The petitioner argued that the MC Commissioner, being the Chief Executive Officer of MC, lacked jurisdiction to disregard or refuse compliance with the “clear and unambiguous” resolution of General House. Appearing for the respondents, advocate Madhu Dayal accepted notice and sought time to file a written statement.
