Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
M/s Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 13983 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Mr. Harshit Singh, Mr. Lalit Mohan and Mr. Virat Saharan, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr. Nihal Singh and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for security service providers to comply with the PSARA Act, 2005, and the denial of principles of natural justice in the absence of disclosure of reliance on legal provisions for debarring.
Headnote:
Debarring Order - Security Services - PSARA Act, 2005, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERRED AND DISCUSSED]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a security services company, was debarred from participating in any tender/contract in the 'sports wing of Delhi Development Authority' for three years due to failure to provide PSARA training certificates and police verification documents for the security guards deployed, and alleged violation of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The petitioner contested the debarring order on various grounds including lack of requirement for training certificates, resolution of payment issues, belated issuance of the order, and non-applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2021. The respondent contended that the petitioner repeatedly failed to provide the required certificates and justified the debarring order based on the Office Memorandum.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the correspondence between the parties and the legal provisions related to debarring/blacklisting. It found that the petitioner failed to provide the required PSARA training certificates and police verification documents despite repeated requests from the respondent. The court also noted that the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2021, relied upon for the debarring order, was not disclosed to the petitioner during the proceedings, leading to a denial of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, putting the petitioner on notice of the reliance on the Office Memorandum for the purpose of debarment.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the requirement for PSARA training certificates, alleged violation of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, belated issuance of the debarring order, applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2021, and denial of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to provide the required PSARA training certificates and police verification documents justified the debarring order. However, the court also found that the reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2021 was not disclosed to the petitioner, leading to a denial of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The impugned debarring order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, putting the petitioner on notice of the reliance on the Office Memorandum for the purpose of debarment.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 21.09.2022 issued by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participation in any tender/contract of any type in the "sports wing of Delhi Development Authority" for a period of three years from the date of the said order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The factual background in the context of which the impugned debarring order has been passed emerges from a conjoint reading of the petition and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1. The petitioner is stated to be a company engaged in the business of providing security surveillance and other manpower services. Pursuant to an e-tender invited by the respondent no. 1 vide NIT No. 1./SBS/DDA/2015-16 (hereinafter referred to as 2015 Work Order'), the petitioner emerged as a successful bidder, and an agreement bearing No. 02/SBS/DDA/2015-2016 was signed between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The said agreement was with regard to engagement of security guards and security supervisors for prevention of trespassing, watch and ward and security surveillance services at DDA, Squash and Badminton, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi, for a period of twelve months. The contract document was executed on 25.08.2015 pursuant to the acceptance letter No.F.2(13)/SBS(civil)/DDA/15-16/143 dated 17.08.2015.
3. Subsequently, a Work Order dated 03.08.2018 was issued for providing security guards (without arms) for CWG Village Sports Complex, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA.), from 01.08.2018 to 31.12.2018. The said Work Order (hereinafter referred to as 2018 Work Order') was thereafter extended till 30.06.2019.
4. It is the assertion of the petitioner in the writ petition that the terms and conditions as contained under the 2015 Work Order were adopted in respect of the 2018 Work Order. In this regard, it has been specifically averred in the writ petition as under:
"4. Finding the services of the Petitioner upto mark and above board, the Respondent No. 1 issued a Work Order 05/CWGVSC/DDA/2018-19 dated 03.08.2018 for providing manpower of 28 security guards at CWG Village Sports Complex, Akshardham from 01.08.2018 to 31.12.2018 on the basis of Contract Agreement No. 02/SBS/DDA/2015-2016 with Squash and Badminton Stadium. In other words, the terms and conditions as enshrined under NIT No. 1./SBS/DDA/2015-16 were adopted for execution of the work order dated 03.08.2018."
5. Even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, it has been averred as under:
"ii. As per the Work Order (annexed as Annexure P3 of the writ petition), the Petitioner was provided the work to provide 28 Security Guards from 01-08-2018 to 31-12-2018, which was extended upto 30-06- 2019 as per the same terms and conditions as per Contract Agreement No. 02/SBS/DDA/2015-16 for Squash and Badminton Stadium."
6. As such, it is the common case of the parties that the terms and conditions of the 2015 Work Order were also to apply in respect of the 2018 Work Order. The work pursuant to the 2018 Work Order stood completed and closed on 30.06.2019.
7. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent no.1 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2020, wherein it was stated by the said respondent that the petitioner has failed to provide proof regarding training of its security guards as per the norms of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "PSARA Act") and that the requisite PSARA training certificates were not provided in respect of the guards deployed by the petitioner. An allegation was also made against the petitioner regarding violation of payment of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. A reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2020 was issued by the petitioner vide letter dated 15.05.2020. Thereafter, another reply to the aforesaid Show Cau
