Judgment

Sanjeev Kumar, J.-The petitioner-company is a security agency registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Private Security Agencies Regulation Act, 2005 (PSARA) and is engaged in the business of providing private security to various organizations throughout India, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for the last several years. The petitioner claims to be a professional security agency providing security guards to as many as 46 organizations all over the country which include institutions like HPCL, HPGCL, IIM, SCERT, Ambedkar Nagar Hospital, Delhi University, National Law University, PUNSUP, PUNGRANE, Canara Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Allahabad Bank etc. etc.

2. It so happened that the Central Security Department of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, respondent No.1, invited bids from eligible parties for empanelment of reputed security agencies to provide security guards for J&K Bank Branches, ATMs, Offices, residential complexes and other Bank’s property in the UT of J&K, UT of Ladakh and other places in the country for a period of three years vide Reference No. JKB/CHQ/CS/F-76/2020-034 dated 28.02.2020. Responding to the aforesaid notification, the petitioner-company submitted its online bid (both technical as well as financial) on 11.06.2020 within the extended period for three zones, i.e. Zone of UT of J&K, Zone of UT of Ladakh and Zone Mohali. The petitioner- company was declared qualified in the technical bid and, accordingly, the respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner-company to participate in the reverse auction to be held on 22.09.2020 along with the details/ number of unskilled, gunmen and skilled guards as was required to be provided by the participating agency. The petitioner-company submitted its bid for a sum of Rs. 5,29,49,166.00 for the total number of security staff. As per the requirement of tender notice, there was a base price providing for minimum wages for the State/UT, ESIC, EPF Contributions, EDLI, Administrative charges and related statutory obligations and mandatory deductions.

3. The petitioner-company along with other eligible bidders participated in the reverse auction on 22.09.2020 only for the Zones of UT of J&K and UT of Ladakh. However, it did not submit any bid for Mohali Zone in the reverse auction held on 22.09.2020. The petitioner- company quoted rate of Rs. 5,29,49,166.00 for the Zone of UT of J&K and Rs. 4,40,599.00 for the Zone of UT of Ladakh, which had been fixed as base/start price by the respondents. On the basis of the bid submitted, the petitioner- company was declared as L-4 for the Zone of UT of J&K and L-1 for the UT of Ladakh in the reverse auction.

4. Due to technical and some other reasons the respondents, however, did not finalize the reverse auction for the Zone of UT of J&K, Zone of UT of Ladakh and Mohali. It decided to conduct revised reverse auction for the Zone of UT of J&K on 27.10.2020. Similarly with regard to Zones of UT of Ladakh and Mohali, open reverse auction was decided to be held on 28.10.2020. In the revised open reverse auction to be conducted by the respondents, it was indicated that the participating bidders would only submit the bid by quoting agency commission/service charges. The petitioner company participated in the revised reverse auction conducted for the Zone of UT of J&K on 27.10.2020 wherein it quoted the rate for agency commission of Rs. 0.01 per skilled/unskilled/gunman. The petitioner also participated in the revised reverse auction conducted for the Zones of Ladakh and Mohali on 28.10.2020 and quoted the same rate of agency commission i.e. Rs. 0.01 per person.

5. Since the petitioner-company was first to give its bid in the revised reverse auction held on 27.10.2020 for the Zone of UT of J&K and the open reverse auction held on 28.10.2020 for Zone of UT of Ladakh and Zone of Mohali, as such, the rates quoted by the petitioner-company became the base price for all the three Zones. Since there was no bid lower than the