Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Shri Shivshakti Services vs Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika & on 7 April, 2016

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, A.Y. Kogje

                  C/SCA/2011/2016                                             ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2011 of 2016

         ==========================================================
                     SHRI SHIVSHAKTI SERVICES....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
                JETPUR NAVAGADH NAGARPALIKA & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         MR RR TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                                    Date : 07/04/2016


                                     ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. The   petitioner,   a   proprietary   concern,   has  challenged   the   action   of   the   respondents   of  cancellation   of   the   earlier   tender   process   and  inviting   new   tenders,   for   which,   notice   dated  18.01.2016 was issued. 

2. Brief facts are as under.

3. Petitioner   is   engaged   in   the   business   of  Page 1 of 9 HC-NIC Page 1 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER supplying   man­power.     Respondent   No.1   is   the   Jetpur  Navagadh Nagarpalika. Respondent No.2 is the Director  of   Municipalities.     Currently   the   petitioner   is  engaged   in   supplying   man­power   to   respondent   No.1­ Nagarpalika   by   way   of   extension   of   the   previous  contract so awarded to the petitioner.  

4. Since   the   earlier   tender   period   for   supplying  man­power   was   getting   over,   the   respondent   No.1  Nagarpalika   invited   tenders   from   interested  contractors.     After   couple   of   failed   attempts,   the  Municipality   through   the   third   tender   process,  received   offers   from   different   contractors.     It   was  found that five agencies including the petitioner were  qualified.     Their   financial   bids   were   opened.  Admittedly, the offer of the petitioner was lowest for  supplying different kinds of personnel. The head clerk  of   the   Nagarpalika,   therefore,   put   a   note   dated  17.12.2015 for consideration of the Chief Officer.  In  such note, copy of which is produced at Annexure:R­VI  with the reply, he pointed out that out of the five  qualified   agencies,   some   of   them   had   quoted   rates  below the minimum wages, which was not permissible as  per   the   letter   of   the   Labour   Commissioner   dated  Page 2 of 9 HC-NIC Page 2 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER 15.09.2015.     For   the   remaining   agencies,   he   had  prepared comparative charts.  He noted that one Kavach  Security   Service   Private   Limited   had   quoted  administrative charge at the rate of Rs.0.10 paisa per  day,   which   is   the   lowest   amongst   all   tenderers.  However, in some categories, he has quoted below the  minimum   wages   regarding   Shivshakti   Security   Service  i.e. the petitioner.  He noted that  the offers of the  petitioner as well as one Success Services have quoted  rates in tune with the minimum wages.   However, the  rates   of   Success   Services   for   administrative   charge  are higher than that of the petitioner.  He therefore  suggested that the rates of the petitioner Shivshakti  Security Service are in tune with the minimum wages,  but his administrative rate of Rs.10 per day may be  negotiated.   On this note, the Chief Officer of the  Nagarpalika marked as under:

"As per the report, it is necessary to call  L1   for   negotiations   regarding   the  administrative rates."

This notice alongwith the remarks of the Chief Officer  were placed before the President of the Nagarpalika,  who on 23.12.2015, remarked as under:

"As   per   your   report,   there   is   a   big   gap   Page 3 of 9 HC-NIC Page 3 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER between   the   lowest   offerer   and   the   rate   of  Rs.10 quoted by Shivshakti Security.   In the  interest   of   Nagarpalika,   process   may   be   initiated for inviting tenders."

5. When   the   respondent   No.1   thus,   invited   fresh  tenders,   the   petitioner   filed   this   petition   and  questioned the cancellation of earlier tender process.  According to the petitioner, the tender was cancelled  without assigning any reasons.   It was done only to  favour   certain   individuals.     The   petitioner   has  therefore   prayed   for   quashing   and   setting   aside   the  fresh tender process.  

6. On   the   other   hand,   the   case   of   the   respondent  No.1 putforth by their advocate Shri Bhavesh Trivedi  is that tender process was cancelled by recording and  assigning proper reasons.  The administrative rate of  Rs.10   quoted   by   the   petitioner   was   excessive.     For  better competition, it was decided to tender afresh.  

7. At   first   brush,   the   ground   recorded   by   the  President of Nagarpalika for canceling the tender and  to   invite   tenders   afresh,   may   seem   convincing   and  attractive.     However,   the   issue   requires   a   closer  scrutiny.   We may recall, the head clerk as well as  Page 4 of 9 HC-NIC Page 4 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER the   Chief   Officer   of   the   Nagarpalika   were   of   the  opinion   that   the   offer   of   the   petitioner   Shivshakti  Security  Service   was  in  tune   with   the   minimum   wages  prescribed, was the lowest of all other tenderers and  in any case, even after accounting for Rs.10 by way of  administrative   rate   was   much   lower   than   the  comparative   offer   of   Shri   Kavach   Security   Service  Private   Limited,   which   had   quoted   Rs.0.10   paisa   for  such administrative rates.  

8. Since   the   annexures   referred   to   in   the   report  submitted   by   the   head   clerk   in   his   note   dated  17.10.2016   were   not   annexed   with   the   reply,   by   our  order   dated   01.04.2016,   we   had   requested   the  Nagarpalika   to   supply   the   same   to   us,   which   were  produced on record today. Perusal of this comparative  chart would show that in majority of rates for supply  of   man­power,   the   basic   rates   offered   by   Shivshakti  Security   Service   i.e.   the   petitioner   towards   daily  rates inclusive of PF and ESI were substantially and  not just marginally below the next lowest rate.   For  example,   for   site   supervisor   with   minimum  qualification   of   B.E.,   Civil   Engineering,   the  petitioner had offered Rs.345.01 as against Rs.386 by  Page 5 of 9 HC-NIC Page 5 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER Growmore, 805 by Kavach, 710 by Success Services and  600 by Secured Services.   In case of site supervisor  with   minimum   qualification   of   diploma   in   civil  engineering, offer of the petitioner was Rs.345.01 as  against those of his competitors as Rs.369, 720, 591,  and 525 respectively.   Towards administrative rates,  the   petitioner   quoted   Rs.10   per   day,   Growmore   has  quoted   Rs.19,   Kavach   Securities   has   quoted   Rs.0.10,  Success   Services   Rs.33,   and   Secured   Services,   no  charge.   Even after, therefore, adding Rs.10 per day  towards service charges, the offer of the petitioner  for   supplying   such   man­power   services   was   way   below  those of his competitors.  We are not unmindful of the  fact   that   in   some   of   the   services   inclusive   of   the  service charges, the petitioner's offer was marginally  higher   than  the   next  lowest   tenderer.    However,  the  overall   picture   that   clearly   emerges   from   the  comparative charts prepared by the Head Clerk is that  the petitioner's offer was way below the consolidated  offers   of   all   other   competitors.     The   view   of   the  President has therefore to be seen in this background.  He   found   the   petitioner   quoting   Rs.10   per   day   per  person   towards   service   charges   too   high;   in   the  Page 6 of 9 HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER process   conveniently   ignoring   that   the   petitioner's  base rates for supplying these man­power services, was  much   lower   than   the   rates   quoted   by   all   other  agencies.  The decision of the Municipality to invite  fresh tenders therefore was based on wholly arbitrary  consideration.     When   the   very   basis   on   which   the  President   opined   that   the   fresh   tenders   would   be   in  the   interest   of   the   Municipality   is   found   to   be  invalid,   the   final   decision   would   be   tainted   with  invalidly.   To   reiterate,   to   call   for   fresh   tenders  only   on   the   ground   that   the   petitioner's   offer   of  Rs.10 per day for service charge is on the higher side  compared   to   Shri   Kavach   Security   Service   Private  Limited, who has quoted 10 paisa per day towards such  head, completely ignores the ground reality that the  base   rates   of   Shri   Kavach   Security   Service   Private  Limited   for   supplying   the   man­power   was   way   above  those quoted by the petitioners.  

9. The   ground   that   the   petitioner   had   already  participated   in   the   fresh   tender   proceedings   and  therefore, cannot challenge, needs a summary response.  What the petitioner has essentially challenged is the  decision   of   the   Municipality   to   cancel   the   previous  Page 7 of 9 HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER tender process.  Inviting fresh tenders is a mere fall  out   of   this   decision.     If   the   decision   itself   is  quashed,   the   consequential   steps   initiated   by   the  Municipality   for   inviting   fresh   tenders   would  automatically be rendered invalid.  In order to ensure  that   the   petitioner   does   not   lose   the   right   to  participate   in   the   new   tender   if   he   fails   in   this  petition   if   he   has   also   applied  in   response   to   the  fresh tenders, his right to question the cancellation  of  the   earlier  tender   process  cannot   be   taken   away.  This   is   not   a   case   where   a   tenderer   who   has  participated in the tender process and who has been at  the   end   of   the   excise   told   that   his   offer   is   not  lowest and therefore, not accepted, turns around and  questions the validity of the tender process.  

10. In   the   result,   the   petition   is   allowed.     The  respondents   shall   proceed   further   from   the   stage   of  considering   the   offer   of   the   petitioner   pursuant   to  the note made by the Head Clerk dated 17.12.2015.  In  other   words,   the   petitioner   would   be   called   for  further   negotiations   in   respect   of   Rs.10   of   service  charge per person per day. The respondent Nagarpalika  shall take final decision thereafter, bearing in mind  Page 8 of 9 HC-NIC Page 8 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/2011/2016 ORDER the observations made in this order.  Any steps taken  pursuant   to   fresh   tender   process   initiated   by   the  Nagarpalika   by   issuance   of   notice   dated   18.01.2016  would be rendered ineffective.   Petition disposed of  accordingly.  Direct service is permitted.         

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) ANKIT Page 9 of 9 HC-NIC Page 9 of 9 Created On Thu Apr 14 00:06:03 IST 2016