Jharkhand High Court
Everest Human Resource Consultants vs Director General on 1 March, 2021
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 705 of 2021
Everest Human Resource Consultants, through its authorized
representative, Major Vinoy Krishna (Retd.) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi &
Anr. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Ms. Malvika Kapila Kalra, Advocate Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Advocate Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Ratna Prabha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
-----
Order No. 03 Dated: 01.03.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
I.A. No. 1151 of 2021 The present interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner seeking stay of termination notice being CIMFR/W&S/Security/BC/19 dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by the Administrative Officer, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research-CSIR, Dhanbad, whereby the contract for providing round the clock security services at Barwa Road Campus of CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad awarded to the petitioner has been terminated with effect from 01.03.2021.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned termination notice has been issued by the respondent authorities with malafide intention and with deliberate attempt to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said termination notice is a counterblast on the part of the respondent authorities as the petitioner had earlier filed writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 66 of 2021 challenging NIT No. CIMFR/W&S/Security/BC/20 dated 11.12.2020 and W.P.(C) No. 164 of 2021 challenging NIT No. CIMFR/W&S/Security/BC/20 dated 17.12.2020. The earlier agreement was executed with the petitioner on 08.07.2020 initially for a period of six months w.e.f. 01.06.2020 to 30.11.2020 and the same was to be extended for another six months on same terms and conditions after satisfactory performance of the services provided by the petitioner. On satisfactory completion of one year, the contract was to be extended for another one year depending upon the satisfactory performance of the services provided by the petitioner. Hence, termination of the said agreement after granting one extension that too, for a period of three months only, is highly arbitrary on the part of the respondents.
Mr. Abhay Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the said prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of arbitration Clause-29 of the General Terms and Conditions of Agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), there is a recourse of getting the matter referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, New Delhi. It is further submitted that in the earlier writ petitions preferred by the petitioner, this Court has passed interim orders that finalization of the tender in question would be subject to the outcome of the said writ petitions. Since the work orders in relation to the said NITs have already been issued to successful tenderers and have also started executing the work i.e., deployment of security personnel in the respective premises of CIMFR, the petitioner does not deserve any interim order in this case.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner's prayer for staying the impugned notice dated 25.01.2021 is rejected.
I.A. No. 1151 of 2021 stands dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 705 of 2021Mr. Abhay Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondents, prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit.
Put up this case under appropriate heading along with W.P.(C) No. 66 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No. 164 of 2021.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish