Jharkhand High Court
M/S Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) ... vs Birsa Agricultural University on 9 September, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2488 of 2025
---
M/s Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) Ltd., having its registered
office at Tiwari Mansion, Kamla Nagar, P.O.-Kokar, P.S.-Sadar,
District-Ranchi, through its Director, Raju Pandey, aged about 42
years, son of Sri Janardan Pandey, R/o Booty, near MDLM Hospital,
P.O.-Booty, P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, through its Vice
Chancellor
2. The Registrar, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi
3. The Purchase Officer, Birsa Agricultural University, Head Quarter,
Kanke, Ranchi
4. M/s Shiva Protection Force Private Limited, having its office at 3 rd
Floor, R.C. Sahu Complex, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi,
through its Director, Rakesh Singh
.... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Janak Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate
For Res. Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate
For Res. No. 4 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate
-----
Reserved on 29.08.2025 Pronounced on 09.09.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and
setting aside the Letter of Award dated 03.04.2025 issued by the
Purchase Officer, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi
(Respondent No.3) whereby the work related to E-Tender Ref. No.
F-05/06/Security/Part-V with respect to providing security
arrangement on contract basis at Birsa Agricultural University,
Ranchi (hereinafter referred as the said Tender), has been
awarded to M/s Shiva Protection Force Private Limited
(Respondent No. 4). Further prayer has been made for award of
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
the said tender in favour of the petitioner as it was declared L1
bidder and vide email dated 05.04.2025, it was informed that its
bid was accepted by the duly constituted committee.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said tender
was floated by the respondent-University in which the petitioner
also participated. Thereafter, being declared technically qualified,
the financial bids of all the bidders were opened on 05.04.2025
and the respondent-University communicated the petitioner vide e-
mail 05.04.2025 that its financial bid was accepted by the duly
Constituted Committee.
3. It is further submitted that on the same day i.e. on 05.04.2025,
the BOQ Summary Details were uploaded in the e-procurement
portal wherein the petitioner was shown as L-1 bidder in all
respect. However, the respondent-University subsequently vide
another e-mail dated 05.04.2025, informed the petitioner that its
bid was not selected for award of contract by the duly Constituted
Committee. The petitioner was further advised to visit the
e-procurement portal for further details.
4. It is contended that the petitioner having visited the
e-procurement portal found that a Letter of Award dated
03.04.2025 with respect to the said tender was issued by the
respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent no. 4.
5. It is also submitted that Tender Summary Reports relating to all
the nine bidders were uploaded on the e-procurement portal on
07.04.2025 wherein the petitioner was capriciously shown as L-5
bidder. The action of the respondents is actuated with malafide
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
and is also discriminatory in nature as well as against the express
terms and conditions of the tender.
6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-University
submits that the financial bids of all the bidders were opened on
28.01.2025 and as per the computer generated ranking, the
petitioner was declared L1 bidder on the basis of wages proposed
for various categories of security personnel, however on close
scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner had quoted wages much
below the minimum wages notified under The Minimum Wages
Act, 1948, which was not only unacceptable but was also illegal.
Consequently, the petitioner's bid as L1 was rejected by the
Central Purchase Committee (CPC).
7. It is further submitted that the bids of all nine bidders were
examined and it was found that 8 out of 9 bidders had quoted the
commission rate as 3.85% except M/s Security and Intelligence
Services (India) Ltd. (SIS), Ranchi, which had quoted 10%
commission rate. As such, the bid of SIS was not considered due
to high commission rate and the CPC thereafter examined the
'Average Annual Turnover' of rest eight bidders for last three
financial years wherein it was found that the respondent no. 4 had
the highest annual turnover of Rs. 80.82 crores as against the
petitioner's annual turnover of Rs.45.39 crores which was fifth in
the list. As such, the respondent no.4 was recommended by the
CPC for award of the contract pertaining to the said tender. The
CPC finalized the tender process on 11.03.2025 itself and the
respondent no.3 intimated the respondent no.4 (the newly
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
selected agency) vide letter no. 1502 dated 03.04.2025 to submit
its letter of acceptance by 07.04.2025 so to complete the further
formalities.
8. It is also submitted that as per the tender document of the said
tender, the respondent-University was in requirement of skilled
security guards without arms which comes under skilled category
mentioned in the notification dated 11.03.2024 issued by the
Labour, Employment, Training & Skill Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand as "Caneman (Lathi/Baton-Wielding)".
The basic rate of minimum daily wage fixed vide said notification
for skilled category of workers in "C" category area was Rs.588/-
without Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA), whereas the
petitioner had quoted the minimum daily wage for the said
category of workers as Rs.446/- including VDA which was much
below the minimum daily wage as provided under the said
notification of the Government of Jharkhand.
9. It is further argued that BOQ pertaining to the tender document
clearly mentioned that the minimum wages as notified by the
Government of Jharkhand was to be revised from time to time.
Moreover, before issuance of tender notice, the VDA connected
with the basic minimum wages was revised w.e.f. 01.10.2024 vide
Notification No.1846 dated 14.10.2024, whereas the rate quoted
by the petitioner was much below the revised rate of minimum
wages as notified on 14.10.2024.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the
respondent no.4 was selected as successful bidder for the said
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
tender by the tender committee subsequent to which the letter of
acceptance was submitted by it to the respondent no.3 vide letter
dated 03.04.2025. Thereafter, 215 employees were deployed in the
respondent-University by the respondent no.4.
11. It is further submitted that the petitioner had violated the terms
and conditions of the tender document as it had quoted the rate
below the notified minimum wages. As such, its bid was rightly
rejected by the CPC of the respondent-University.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials placed on record.
13. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner was initially declared as L1 bidder and its bid
was accepted by the respondent-University, however subsequently
the respondent-University arbitrarily awarded the tender to the
respondent no.4.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent-University has countered
the contention of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner had
quoted the basic rate of daily wages much below the minimum
wages fixed vide notification dated 11.03.2024 issued by the
Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill
Development, Government of Jharkhand and since no Agency or
University could pay daily wages below the rate as mentioned in
the said notification, the petitioner's bid was rejected by the CPC.
Since out of 9 bidders, 8 bidders had quoted the similar
commission rate as 3.85% and one bidder, namely, SIS had quoted
10% commission rate, the said tender was awarded to the
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
respondent no.4 on the basis of average annual turnover of last
three financial years.
15. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties, we have perused the BOQ pertaining to the tender
document wherein it was explicitly stipulated as under: -
"Rates should be as per Minimum Wages Act,
1948 and Department of Labour Employment,
Training & Skill Development, Govt. of
Jharkhand, notification no.142 dated
11.03.2024."
16. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the Notification dated
11.03.2024 issued by the Department of Labour, Employment,
Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand with its
rejoinder to the counter affidavit dated 24.06.2025 wherein
classification of Scheduled Employments has been made and the
employment of workers engaged in Government Offices/
Undertakings/Boards & Local Bodies in the State of Jharkhand has
been placed under Sl. No. 49 of Category 'Ka'.
17. In the Notification dated 11.03.2024, revised basic rates of
Minimum Wages for Scheduled Employments under Category 'Ka'
have been prescribed and the wage quoted by the petitioner in its
bid matches with the wages of Semi-Skilled persons. It is
contended by the petitioner that the Security Guards (without
arms) fall under Semi-skilled category and as such, the petitioner
had quoted the minimum basic rate of daily wages prescribed for
semi-skilled employment.
18. The stand of the respondent-University is that the security
personnel required for the security work of the University come
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
under the category of skilled employment but the petitioner had
not quoted the minimum basic wage prescribed for skilled
labourers and as such, its bid was rejected as L1. However, the
said stand of the respondent-University does not find support from
the stipulation made in the Notification dated 11.03.2024.
19. Moreover, bare perusal of proceeding of the CPC reveals that the
bid of the petitioner was not rejected, rather the bids of eight
bidders including the petitioner who had quoted same rate of
commission, were examined on the basis of average annual
turnover of last three financial years wherein the petitioner was
placed at Sl. No.5.
20. The said tender was awarded to the respondent no. 4 on the
ground that it had the highest annual turnover. If the petitioner
had quoted the rate below the prescribed minimum basic wage, its
bid was liable to be rejected. However, the respondent-University
had not rejected the bid of the petitioner, rather the bids of
different agencies were examined on the basis of average annual
turnover of last three financial years. This clearly falsifies the claim
of the respondent-University that since the petitioner had quoted
the rate of wage below the prescribed minimum wage, its bid was
rejected. The said stand is an afterthought just to justify its
decision in not awarding the said tender to the petitioner.
Moreover, the claim of the respondent-University that the
petitioner had quoted the rate of wage below the prescribed
minimum wage has been raised for the first time before this court.
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
21. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief
Election Commissioner and New Delhi & Others reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 405 the constitution bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under: -
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that
when a statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot
be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape
of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order
bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes
to court on account of a challenge, get validated
by additional grounds later brought out. We may
here draw attention to the observations of Bose,
J. in [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas
Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088]:
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of
a statutory authority cannot be construed
in the light of explanations subsequently
given by the officer making the order of
what he meant, or of what was in his mind,
or what he intended to do. Public orders
made by public authorities are meant to
have public effect and are intended to
affect the actings and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively with reference to the
language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older."
22. Thus, the reason for passing an order cannot be supplemented by
filing a counter affidavit and the validity of the order must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned in the order itself. An order
which is bad in the beginning, cannot be validated by any
additional ground brought out later.
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
23. The contention of the respondent-University that the minimum
wages has further been revised vide Notification No. 1846 dated
14.10.2024 and the same would apply to the present tender, also
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that in the tender document
itself, it was stipulated that the rates of wages should be as per
the prescribed rates of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the
notification dated 11.03.2024 of the Department of Labour
Employment, Training & Skill Development, Government of
Jharkhand.
24. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has put reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
of Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited
Vs. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and Others
reported in (2016) 8 SCC 446. In the said case, it has been held
that the essential conditions of tender are required to be strictly
complied and there is no power to relax such condition. It has
further been held that one of the tender conditions was that the
salary paid to the manpower should not be less than minimum
prescribed wage and if the quoted salary was less than the
minimum prescribed wage, such bid was liable to be rejected. The
respondent no. 1 of that case had quoted the rate much below the
minimum wage prescribed by the Labour Department and as such,
its bid was liable to be rejected. It has further been held that the
other condition of the tender document was that the price quoted
by the bidders had to be fixed one and no open-ended bid could
be entertained, however, the price quoted by the respondent no.1
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
was open ended.
25. We are of the view that the said judgment is not applicable in the
fact of the present case on two counts; one is that the
respondents have failed to satisfy to this Court that the petitioner
had violated the terms and conditions of the tender, and the other
is that the bid of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground
that it had quoted the basic rate of wage less than the prescribed
minimum wage. In fact, on bare perusal of proceeding of the CPC,
it transpires that the bid of the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 5
on the basis of average annual turnover of last three financial
years and the said tender was awarded to the respondent no.4.
26. So far as the selection of the bidder on the basis of average annual
turnover of last three financial years is concerned, the respondents
have failed to show any such stipulation in the tender notice which
specifies that if the quoted commission rates of more than one
bidders are equal, then the bidder will be selected on the basis of
highest average annual turnover of last three financial years. Thus,
we are of the view that the award of the said tender to the
respondent no.4 is an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power
by the respondent-University.
27. It is trite law that ordinarily in a matter of enforcement of a
contract, a writ court should not exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet where the action of the
State or its instrumentality is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India being wholly unfair and unreasonable, the
writ court may issue suitable directions to set right such arbitrary
2025:JHHC:27309-DB
action.
28. Since eight bidders had quoted equal rate of commission, award of
tender to any one bidder would certainly prejudice the interest of
other bidders and as such it will be in the interest of justice to
cancel the present tender.
29. The tender in question is thus ordered to be cancelled. The
respondent-University is however at liberty to issue fresh tender
for the said work.
30. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
A.F.R.
Vikas/-
