Amar Detectives and Consultancy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Amar Detectives and Consultancy vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Jan 30, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/714260

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/714260
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Markandeya Katju, C.J. and; Madan B. Lokur, J.
Decided On: Jan 30, 2006
Case Number: W.P (C) No. 2297/2005
Subject: Contract
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - Writ Petition challenging the contract awarded for providing security guards--Directive by the Government of India to all Public Sector Undertakings, Autonomous Bodies and other organisations that ex-servicemen's security agencies should be engaged without engaging security a...

Key legal issue: Contract
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Institutes of Technology Act, 1961; Constitution of Inida - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amar Detectives and Consultancy

Advocate S.M. Dalal, Adv

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate Maninder Singh, ; Girish Mishra and ; Bhismadev, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Institutes of Technology Act, 1961; Constitution of Inida - Article 226
Reported In: III(2006)BC258; 2006(1)CTLJ183(Del); 2006(87)DRJ449

Excerpt

constitution of india, 1950article 226 - writ petition challenging the contract awarded for providing security guards--directive by the government of india to all public sector undertakings, autonomous bodies and other organisations that ex-servicemen's security agencies should be engaged without engaging security agencies by public tenders--petitioner's failure to fulfill the eligibility criteria of experience to provide similar strength of staff nor possessing wireless licence nor given solvency certificate--writ petition held not maintainable. - - 9. in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that though the petitioner's rates were lowest, it had not satisfied the conditions of the tender and hence it was not granted the contract. the petitioner clearly suppressed the letter dated 29.7.2004 in the writ petition. 12. a perusal of the said letter shows that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the conditions of the tender......other condition of submitting a bank solvency certificate of rs. 25 lacs was also not fulfilled.9. in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that though the petitioner's rates were lowest, it had not satisfied the conditions of the tender and hence it was not granted the contract.10. in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that representatives of the petitioner were present in the meeting of the sub-committee held on 31.7.2004. in the said meeting they admitted that they did not have any client to whom they had provided security staff of 150 or more in one location. they do not have ctc of wireless license issued by the government of india and experience in handing of acs & cctv. they only submitted a bank statement but the bank solvency certificate for rs. 25 lacs was not submitted.11. in view of the facts stated in the counter affidavit of the iit it has to be held that the contract could not be awarded to the petitioner as he did not fulfill the eligibility requirements. the petitioner clearly suppressed the letter dated 29.7.2004 in the writ petition.12. a perusal of the said letter shows that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the conditions of the tender. thus, petitioner has not come with clean hands, and for this reason also he is not entitled to the discretionary relief under article 226.13. there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus restraining the respondent No. 2, IIT Delhi from implementing the contract awarded to respondent No. 3 the M/s Security Intelligence Services, New Delhi for providing trained security guards for protecting the premises and property of respondent No. 2. Petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to award the said contract to the petitioner having offered the lowest tender.

2. Petitioner has alleged that it is a professional security agency and is run and managed by Ex-servicemen. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the Ministry of defense issued a circular dated 4.2.1994 vide annexure P1 to the writ petition by which it was requested that all public sector undertakings, autonomous bodies and all other organizations/establishments under the administrative control of the Ministries should approach the DGR for sponsoring Ex-servicemen's Security Agencies on its panel without engaging security agencies on contract through open tenders.

3. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that in May, 2004 a notice inviting tenders was issued for award of fresh security contract instead of approaching the DGR to sponsor Ex-servicemen Security Agencies on its panel. A true copy of the Notice Inviting Tender issued by respondent No. 2 is annexure P4 to the writ petition. It is alleged that this notice is contrary to the aforesaid Government of India's directive order dated 4.2.1994.

4. The petitioner also submitted its tender but the contract has been awarded to respondent No. 3, though its rates were far in excess of the rates quoted by the petitioner. Also the respondent No. 3 is not a DGR sponsored security agency.

5. A counter affidavit was filed by the IIT and we have perused the same.

6. We also have perused the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3. In paragraph 4 thereof, it is stated that the directive of the Government of India does not apply to respondent No. 2, the Indian Institute of Technology as it is not a Public Sector Undertaking and is not under the administrative control of the Government of India. The IIT is governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 which is a parliamentary law. Hence, the said Government of India order dated 4.2.1994 does not apply to the IIT.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the IIT, it is stated in paragraph 9 dated 26.3.2004 that a high powered committee was constituted by the IIT for the purpose of finalization of the contract. The Committee noticed that no security agency which applied for this tender was registered with the DGR, though the petitioner was making a claim to that effect. At any event the competent authority of the IIT decided that it would go for the process of tender for the award of the security contract. Deliberations were held and the matter was discussed by the Committee.

8. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the sub-committee constituted for this purpose had held its meeting on 24.7.2004 in which it was decided to seek clarification and documents from the petitioner regarding the eligibility conditions. The petitioner submitted a response dated 29.7.2004 vide annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit engaging certain documents. A perusal of this letter dated 29.7.2004 showed that the petitioner did not give any response to the basic query regarding the names of those clients and places where it had deployed security staff of 150 at one location. The other condition of submitting a bank solvency certificate of Rs. 25 lacs was also not fulfilled.

9. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that though the petitioner's rates were lowest, it had not satisfied the conditions of the tender and hence it was not granted the contract.

10. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that representatives of the petitioner were present in the meeting of the sub-committee held on 31.7.2004. In the said meeting they admitted that they did not have any client to whom they had provided security staff of 150 or more in one location. They do not have CTC of wireless license issued by the Government of India and experience in handing of ACS & CCTV. They only submitted a bank statement but the bank solvency certificate for Rs. 25 lacs was not submitted.

11. In view of the facts stated in the counter affidavit of the IIT it has to be held that the contract could not be awarded to the petitioner as he did not fulfill the eligibility requirements. The petitioner clearly suppressed the letter dated 29.7.2004 in the writ petition.

12. A perusal of the said letter shows that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the conditions of the tender. Thus, petitioner has not come with clean hands, and for this reason also he is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226.

13. There is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2006 Same Parties Amar Detectives and Consultancy vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Contract Same Judge Markandeya Katju, C.J. and; Madan B. Lokur, J. Acts & Sections Institutes of Technology Act, 1961; Constitution of Inida - A...

Contract