Delhi High Court
M/S. Gaurav Security Service vs Delhi Tourism And Transport ... on 9 July, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.07.2015
+ W.P.(C) 639/2015 and CM No. 1115/2015
M/S. GAURAV SECURITY SERVICE ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Saurabh Kirpal and Mr Nikhil Rohatgi
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr S.B. Upadhyay, Sr Advocate with Mr Abhimanyu Garg and
Mr Kaustuv Pathak
For the Respondent No. 2 : Ms Manika Tripathy Pandey and Mr Ashutosh Kaushik
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition pertains to the notice inviting tender for Security
Services for Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation
Limited which was issued on 10.12.2014. The petitioner which is a
partnership firm participated in the said tender, however, the petitioner's bid
was rejected primarily on two grounds. The first ground was that the
partnership concern was not run by an Ex-Serviceman and the second ground
being that the petitioner firm did not have requisite experience of three years
as also the petitioner firm did not have any recognition under Delhi Private
Security Agency (Regulation) Rules, 2009 or any ISO Certification.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the
business of the petitioner firm was being run as a proprietorship concern.
The proprietorship concern had the requisite experience but the partnership
which was constituted in May, 2014 did not. He further submitted that the
proprietorship concern was not being run by an Ex-Servicemen but the
partnership concern comprised of two partners, one of whom was an Ex-
serviceman. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner's bid ought not
to have been rejected as one of the partners was an Ex-Serviceman and the
experience of the proprietorship concern ought to have been taken into
account. However, insofar as recognition under the Delhi Private Security
Agency (Regulation) Rules, 2009 is concerned, it was candidly admitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the partnership concern did not
have any such recognition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of DTTDC drew our
attention to Clause 2 of the NIT which prescribes the eligibility conditions.
The said clause 2 reads as under:-
"2. Eligible Bidders:-
2.1 All Security agencies who are providing similar kind of
services for at least last three consecutive years and having
annual average turnover of Rs 2.70 crores (30% of the
estimated value of the contract) during the last three financial
years as per the books of accounts and being run by Ex-
Servicemen/Ex-Para-Military men are eligible to apply.
2.2 The bidder should have the experience of completion of
similar works in any of the Departments / Autonomous
Institutions / Universities / Public Sector Undertakings of the
Government of India or Government of NCT of Delhi or any
other State Government or Public Sector Banks or Local
Bodies / Municipalities or reputed private sector Companies /
Institutions as follows:
(a) Three similar completed works costing not less than the
amount equal to 40% of the estimated cost; or
(b) Two similar completed works costing not less than the
amount equal to 50% of the estimated cost; or
(c) One similar completed work costing not less than the
amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost.
2.3 The agencies having employed 800 employees for the last
three years are eligible to participate in this process.
2.4 The firms of Sole Proprietor / JV / Partnership /
Consortium are eligible to participate in the tender process. JV
/ Partnership Firm / Consortium are permitted provided that
each member / partner of the JV / Partnership / Consortium
shall fulfil all the terms and conditions individually and
collectively.
2.5 The agencies must be registered under Delhi Private
Security Agency (Regulations) Rules, 2009."
He specifically drew out attention to clauses 2.4 and 2.5. On going through
the said clauses it is evident that a partnership concern is eligible to bid in the
said tender provided each of the partners fulfills all the terms and conditions,
individually and collectively. He submitted that though one of the partners
was an Ex-Serviceman, the other one was not and, therefore, clause 2.1 read
with this condition was not satisfied. Furthermore, clause 2.5 clearly
stipulated that the agency must be registered under Delhi Private Security
Agency (Regulation) Rules, 2009. It is clear that the petitioner firm is not
registered under the said Rules. Therefore, it was contended by the learned
counsel for the said respondent that the petitioner was ineligible and its bid
was rightly rejected. We agree with the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondent that the petitioner did not satisfy clauses 2.1, 2.4
and 2.5 of the NIT.
4. Before parting with this case, we would like to point out that there
might be some ambiguity in the reading of clause 2.1 and clause 2.4 with
regard to the requirement that the agency must be run by Ex-Servicemen /
Ex-Para-Military men, particularly, in case companies are permitted to
participate. The learned counsel for the respondent has assured this court
that he shall ask the respondent to issue appropriate clarifications for future
tenders. Since the petitioner has approached this court after participating in
the NIT and after rejection of its bid, we have not examined the plea taken
by the petitioner that the condition stipulated in clause 2.1 is arbitrary.
5. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JULY 09, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SU
