Bengaluru: The high court has stayed BBMP’s new tender notification for solid waste management issued on May 28, while directing the state govt to submit an affidavit explaining its actions. Justice M Nagaprasanna said the move appeared to be prima facie contempt of court.The order came while hearing a review petition filed by the Bengaluru Mahanagara Swachate Mattu Lorry Malikara Hagoo Gutthigedarara Sangha. The petitioner challenged the fresh tender notification and sought a review of the court’s earlier judgment dated April 22, which had upheld a previous BBMP tender issued on Nov 7, 2024.In the earlier order, the judge had allowed the petitioners to participate in the new tender process and directed the state to submit an affidavit outlining a revised timeline for completing it. “The state shall redraw the timeline for the completion of the process of tender at an outer limit of four months, if not earlier. The timeline shall be filed before this court, by way of an affidavit, for its strict adherence,” Justice Nagaprasanna had said in the April 22 order.He had added that if the timeline was violated, the petitioners had the liberty to return to the court. He had also noted that previous legal challenges to tender disqualifications should not be held against petitioners during the evaluation of their bids.The review petitioners, who were respondents in earlier litigation, argued that BBMP’s issuance of a fresh tender during ongoing proceedings violated the undertaking given to the court and defied its earlier directions.In contrast, the advocate general submitted that there was no breach of undertaking as the May 28 tender was distinct from the earlier one. He said an affidavit would be filed to clarify the sequence of events.The Sangha has also raised objections to a govt order dated May 26, which it claims includes clauses that require ministerial approval — allegedly in violation of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act.According to the petitioners, the issuance of the new request for proposal (RFP) two days later further undermined the court’s April 22 judgment, where the state’s undertaking was explicitly recorded. The court will continue hearing the matter after the affidavit is filed.