Delhi High Court
High Command vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 28 July, 2020
SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR
28.07.2020 21:19
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th July, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 4630/2020 & CM APPLs.16731-32/2020
HIGH COMMAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Puri, Advocate.
(M:9899199898)
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Nihaarika Jauhari,
Advocate for DDA. (M:9873367274)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The Petitioner was one of the bidders in the e-tender issued on 8th
May, 2020 for deployment of security guards at the Squash and Badminton
Stadium run by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, "DDA").
The Petitioner had submitted its bid and so had various other bidders. The
Petitioner has, however, been declared bid rank 'L3' and has therefore not
been called for the draw of lots. Hence, the present petition.
3. The submission of Mr. Gaurav Puri, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is
that the bids submitted by the other bidders show that the bidders have
quoted Rs.1/- above minimum wages, which is contrary to the scheme of the
bid itself. All successful contractors have to provide various facilities to the
security guards including uniforms etc. and the same is impractical with a
profit of only Rs.1/-. He further submits that his client had quoted Rs.899/-
which included the bonus amount and profit of Rs.71/-. As per clause 8 and
8(a), the taxes i.e. EPF, ESI and GST are not to be included in the bid.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
Signing Date:28.07.2020 19:05
Further, insofar as the bonus is concerned, according to the Petitioner's
understanding, the same was to be added in the bid amount. He submits that
since the Petitioner was not called for the draw of lots, the Petitioner made a
representation on 23rd July, 2020, however, the same has not been
considered.
4. Ms. Sen appearing for DDA on advance notice submits that the draw
of lots which was listed for today has be postponed and no specific date has
been fixed. The Petitioner is only 'L3' and there are other bids which DDA
has finalized for the draw of lots.
5. Considering the submissions made by the parties, this court is of the
opinion that the representation made by the Petitioner shall be considered by
the DDA inasmuch as the Rs.1/- profit, which has been quoted by other
bidders, would have to be realistically viewed by the DDA. The stand of the
Petitioner in respect of Clauses 8 and 8(a) also ought to be considered. If the
bonus is to be included, then the margin of Rs. 1/- appears impractical and
unrealistic. This is a commercial bidding process and the same ought to be
fair and competitive. Such a low margin may in fact reflect on the quality of
services as well. A speaking order be passed by the DDA and be
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks. All rights and remedies of
the Petitioner in respect of the said order are left open. In the meantime, the
draw of lots shall not be held for a period of four weeks from today.
6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending
applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JULY 28, 2020/dk/T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
Signing Date:28.07.2020 19:05
