Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Datar Security Pvt. Ltd vs Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd on 18 December, 2020
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
113
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
(Through video conference)
WP(C) No. 1958/2020
CM Nos. 7397/2020 &
7398/2020
M/s Datar Security Pvt. Ltd, Nanak Nagar, ....Petitioner(s)
Jammu
Through :- Mr. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Advocate
V/s
Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. ....Respondent(s)
through its Chairman and others
Through :-
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
ORDER
18.12.2020 The petitioner is a security agency involved in the business of providing security guards. Presently, the petitioner-company is providing security guards to as many as 46 organizations etc all over the country, details whereof have been given in the writ petition.
The case set up is that the petitioner had responded to NIT issued by the J&K Bank for providing security guards for J&K Bank branches, ATMs, offices, residential complexes and other banks' property for the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh and Mohali. In the said process, the petitioner had submitted its bid. After receipt of the bid, the bank decided to MUNEESH SHARMA 2020.12.23 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 WP(C) No. 1958/2020 conduct a reverse auction in regard to the commission chargeable other than the wages of the security guards, which have been fixed as per the statutes.
It is stated that the reverse auction was to be conducted only in regard to agency commission, which in this case as asserted by the learned senior counsel was claimed at Rs. 0.01 paisa per person for all the three zones. By virtue of the order impugned order dated 13.11.2020, the petitioner has been informed that the bid of the petitioner in the reverse auction was unrealistic and, therefore, has been rejected. The petitioner also stood informed that the company had been debarred from any other bidding process.
It is stated that according to the terms and conditions of the NIT, the petitioner was only debarred from claiming NIL commission, which was not the case in the present bidding process. It was stated that the agency commissioned at Rs.0.01 paisa claimed by the petitioner was indeed low but could not be said to be unrealistic, which commission rates was similar to one being claimed from the State Bank of India. It is stated that low rates were prescribed with a view to ensure that the guards engaged by the petitioner are not deprived of their wages during these difficult times of the pandemic even at the cost of a low commissioned rate of the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel further states that the Jammu & Kashmir Bank has since been held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of a Single Bench of the Srinagar Wing of the High Court in case titled "Abhishek Gupta and others Vs Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and others" in WP(C) No. 913/2020 decided on MUNEESH SHARMA 2020.12.23 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 WP(C) No. 1958/2020 29.06.2020. It is stated that the respondents' Bank has been declared as a public authority.
Prima facie, a case is made out.
Issue notice in the main petition as also in connected petition, returnable within two weeks.
List again on 16.02.2021.
In the meantime, subject to objections and till next date of hearing, operation of order dated 13.11.2020 as also the order dated 01.12.2020 shall remain stayed.
(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge JAMMU 18.12.2020 (Muneesh) MUNEESH SHARMA 2020.12.23 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document