Delhi High Court
Hawkeye, Protection & Detective ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 16 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996IAD(DELHI)214, 1996(36)DRJ150
JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
(1) Petitioner claims to he engaged in the business of providing security services and traffic arrangements to various companies/organisations, industrial units, export house and Press houses etc. and claims to be a pioneer in the said field having sound reputation and goodwill. On June 22, 1995 respondent No. 1 invited sealed lenders from experienced agencies in the field of security and traffic arrangements in various N.D.M.C. buildings for the year 1995-96 at an estimated cost of Rs.6.12 lacs per month. Tenders were opened on July 21, 1995. It is the petitioner's case that he was declared to be the lowest tenderer having quoted an amount of Rs.6,37,194.00 per month whereas respondent No.4 had quoted Rs.6,43,174.85 per month. Petitioner claims that it was called upon to all end the office of respondent No.2 for negotiations and clarifications, in response to which he submitted all relevant documents which were required by respondents 2 & 3. Despite repeated requests nothing was heard and it was on October 10, 1995 that the petitioner from a news item in Sahara Samachar learnt that tender of respondent No.4 had been accepted. This act of awarding contract to respondent No.4 is under challenge in this writ petition.
(2) One of the grounds is that award of contract to respondent No.4 is due to some extraneous considerations. Award of contract to respondent No.4, according to the petitioner would result in an annual loss of Rs.71,770.00 to the ex-chequer. Though the petitioner was competent to carry out contract at a lower rate, ignoring' petitioner's lender it has been awarded to respondent No.4 in a calendes time manner. Petitioner has also referred to some of the complaints, which are stated to be pending against respondent No.4 as regards non payment of the dues of its workmen and also nonpayment of dues towards provident fund.
(3) Respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the writ petition on number of grounds. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the affidavits exchanged, we do not find any merit in the petition.
(4) At the very outset we may point out that affidavit in support of petition is not in order. Petitioner has questioned the award of contract to respondent No.4, alleging that the same is malafide, arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations. In his affidavit it is stated that the contents of the petition are true to knowledge, belief and in formation gathered. Which part of the petition is true to the belief or information gathered is not slated. Neither source of information nor belief is staled. Such a defective affidavit has to be ignored from consideration.
(5) In the reply filed by respondents 1 to 3 on the affidavit of V.N. Roy, Chief Security Officer, N.D.M.C. it is stated that the experience of the petitioner in providing security is mainly in small business houses and it was found that the petitioner had no experience in providing security arrangements for leading Government, Semi Government, Public Sector Undertakings, which was one of the pre-conditions in the guidelines issued to the competitors for the tender in question. Petitioner through letter dated August 24, 1995 was asked to submit documents regarding certain matters as regards its experience and the position of the staff. On August 25, 1995 respondents asked the petitioner to produce number of registration with the Labour Commissioner. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements and in its letter dated August 29, 1995 the petitioner admitted that it was not in a position to comply with certain conditions, as laid down in the guidelines of the tender. Therefore, as per the petitioner's own showing it was not eligible to be considered for the grant of tender for providing security in various N.D.M.C. buildings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also has not been able to substantial the objection of the respondents as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for the grant of tender.
(6) In the light of the above position in case tender of respondent No.4 was accepted, for which the petitioner is not otherwise entitled, no grievance can be made by the petitioner. As regards the extraneous considerations, namely, complaints alleged to be pending against respondent No.4, with regard to the previous works executed by it, needless to add that when such objection was taken by the petitioner, the matter was got enquired into by the respondents from the office of Labour Commissioner and also from the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and it was found that the complaints were frivolous and had been made at the instigation and behest of certain competitors. Respondents 1 to 3 in their affidavit have stated that keeping in view the experience of respondent No.4 in carrying out the work of security and traffic arrangement in high rise buildings, sensitive places like foreign embassies, high commissions in Delhi and the fact that the Chief Managing Director of respondent No.4 is a senior ex-Army Officer of the rank of Lt. Colonel with vast experience in security and allied matters, fully justifies the award of work to respondent.
(7) We do not find anything wrong in the decision making process of the respondents in having awarded the contract in question to respondent No.4. Writ petition accordingly is dismissed.