( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) CHALLENGE in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the legality and propriety of the order dated 17 July, 2004, passed by the director (Sports), Delhi Development Authority (for short "the DDA"), respondent No. 3 herein, debarring the petitioner from tendering in future for the Sports Wing of the DDA. The petitioner prays for quashing of the said order with a direction to the respondents to award to them the contract for prevention of trespassing and protection of the golf course land of Qutub Golf Course, new Delhi, their bid being the lowest.

( 4 ) THE DDA, through its Chairman, has been impleaded as the first respondent and the second respondent is the Secretary, DDA, Qutub Golf course, New Delhi.

( 5 ) IN the month of December, 2003, the second respondent issued a Notice inviting Tender ("nit" for short) for engagement of a firm for the aforementioned purpose. The tender was to be submitted in two parts. Part I of the tender, viz. , the technical bid was to contain the details of the type of works undertaken; infrastructure and manpower available; experience in prevention of trespassing and protection of land in industrial organisations and the minimum turn over. Part II, viz. , the financial bid was to contain the amount to be charged on monthly basis for providing the said services. The material stipulation in Clause 3 (b) of General Terms and Conditions was as follows:

"the offer of the firm, which does not abide by the Minimum Wages Act, as notified by GNCT Delhi on the date of submitting of tender, will be out rightly rejected. "

( 6 ) THE technical bid was to be opened first and the financial bids of only those tenderers, who were found technically capable of ensuring prevention of trespassing and protection of land, were to be opened.

( 7 ) IN response to the NIT, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1962, submitted its tender. Four technical bids, including the one submitted by the petitioner, were found to be responsive. Their financial bids were opened and petitioner s bid was found to be the lowest. Since the rate of Rs. 3,212/- per guard per month, after adding the relieving charges, offered by the petitioner, was found to be below the rates prescribed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, vide letter dated 23 april, 2004, the second respondent sought the following clarifications from the petitioner:

"your Financial Bid, which was opened 15. 3. 2004 has been examined. You are requested to clarify your rate keeping in mind the stipulation of minimum wages rate based on GNCTD by adding relieving charges as laid down at Para 3, Sub-paras (b) and (c) of the tender document. Photocopy enclosed. Also, you are requested to clarify how the contract will be executed without adding service charges. "

( 8 ) PETITIONER s response to the said letter was as under:

"the firm has quoted the rate for security services at your esteemed sports complex with accordance to the NIT of Govt. of NCT of Delhi without any motivation of profit. The breakdown is as below: p. 891. htm this amount is as per notification No. F. 12 (142)2/mw/lab/97 dated 20,6. 2003 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 of NCT of Delhi. This firm is providing services to more than 30 Govt. Departments and we are compelled to keep a good amount of surplus man power and we would like to render car service to your honourable institution without any service charges. "

( 9 ) ON consideration of the explanation so furnished by the petitioner the financial bid of the petitioner was not only rejected but they were also debarred from future tendering in the Sports Wing of the DDA. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

( 10 ) THE writ petition is resisted by the respondents. In the affidavit in opposition, filed on behalf of the r