Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. Sarangi, Savitri Ratho, JJ.
M/s. Sarala Security & Facility Services, Bhadrak - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa & Ors. - Opp. Parties
W.P(C) No. 32470 of 2021
Decided On : 02-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Subhankar Rout, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Abhimanyu Parida, Advocate, Mr. Lalit Kumar Moharana,
Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirements of the tender call notice, specifically clause-13(b) which required the submission of registration certificate of the applicant organization under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The court emphasized that submission of the license/registration certificate under the said Act was not mandatory, and any one or more out of seven types of documents mentioned in the clause would satisfy the requirement. The court also highlighted the importance of approaching the court with clean hands.
Headnote:
TENDER BID - Disqualification of Bidder - Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 - [Clause-13(b)] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the requirements of the tender call notice, specifically clause-13(b) which required the submission of registration certificate of the applicant organization under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The court interpreted the clause and emphasized that submission of the license/registration certificate under the said Act was not mandatory, and any one or more out of seven types of documents mentioned in the clause would satisfy the requirement. The court highlighted the findings of the tender committee, which disqualified bidders who did not satisfy the requirements of the tender call notice and qualified the opposite parties based on their compliance with the clause. The court concluded that the petitioner, having not satisfied the requirements of the tender call notice, cannot challenge the decision of the tender committee with regard to the selection of opposite parties in technical evaluation. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging its disqualification in the technical evaluation of a tender bid. The petitioner contended that it had satisfied the requirements of the tender call notice, while opposite parties no.3, 4 & 5 had not. The petitioner alleged that the opposite parties should have been disqualified for not submitting the license/registration certificate under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirements of the tender call notice and had been disqualified for non-compliance. The court emphasized that the submission of the license/registration certificate under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 was not mandatory, and the tender committee had acted in accordance with the requirements of the tender call notice. The court concluded that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the disqualification of the petitioner in the technical evaluation of a tender bid, the compliance with the requirements of the tender call notice, and the submission of the license/registration certificate under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the submission of the license/registration certificate under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 was not mandatory, and the tender committee had acted in accordance with the requirements of the tender call notice. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and dismissed the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirements of the tender call notice and had not approached the court with clean hands. The interim orders passed earlier were vacated, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. SARANGI, J.
M/s. Sarala Security and Facility Services, which is a partnership firm, represented through its Managing Partner Bhagirathi Nayak, has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.2-Executive Officer, Basudevpur Municipality, Bhadrak to consider its bid, being the lowest bidder, and allow it to compete with opposite parties no.3, 4 & 5 bidders, and to issue work order in its favour.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that opposite party no.2 issued a tender call notice vide Annexure-2 inviting eligible agencies to submit their bids for providing services of different categories of manpowers (unskilled, semi skilled, skilled & highly skilled) to Basudevpur Municipality. It was detailed in the tender call notice, that the tender document can be purchased in person from the municipal office on any working day between 11 am to 4 pm from 06.09.2021 to 15.09.2021 against the prescribed bid document cost, or it can also be downloaded from the website of Basudevpur Municipality www.basudevpurmunicipality. in/District website www.bhadrak.nic.in from 11.00 am of 06.09.2021 up to 4.00 pm of 15.09.2021. The date and time for submission of tender document was on or before 17.09.2021 by 11.00 AM through Registered/Speed post only and the date and time for opening of technical bids was 17.09.2021 at 3.00 pm. The technical presentation on work plan was to be made by the technically qualified bidders from 11 am onwards on 20.09.2021. The date and time of opening of financial bids of eligible bidders was on 22.09.2021 at 3 pm. It was also mentioned in the tender document that the likely date for commencement of deployment of required manpower would be 01.10.2021 or as may be decided by the authority.
2.1 The tender document also contained the scope of work and general instructions for bidders. Clause-3 thereof reads as follows:
“The tentative requirement of the Municipality is given hereunder which may increase/decrease in any/all the categories
| i. | Un-Skilled | 60 | No’s |
| ii. | Semi-Skilled | 2 | No’s |
| iii. | Skilled | 3 | No’s |
| iv. | Highly Skilled | 1 | No’s |
The manpower under the above categories consists of Security Guard, Watchman, Mall, Sweepers, Coolie, Drain, gang, Amin, Driver for light/heavy vehicles, Driver for heavy construction on equipment, plumber, helper, Electrician, Data Entry Operator, Work Sarkar, Peon, Attendant, Jamadar etc. The selected agency shall provide manpower having requisite qualification and experience for the post required as per the Govt. guideline as and when required by the Basudevpur Municipality.”
2.2. Under clause-13 of the said general instructions, it was stipulated that the tendering manpower service providers are required to enclose the following documents:
“13. The tendering Manpower Service providers are required to enclose photocopies of the following self attested documents, along with the Technical Bid failing which their bids shall be summary/out rightly rejected and will not be considered any further.
(a) Application – Technical Bid
(b) Registration certificate of the applicant organization
(Proprietor/Partnership/Company/NGO) such as (Any One or more)
Registered under the Companies Act,2013
Registered under the Indian Partnership Act,1932
Registered under the Indian Trusts Act,1882 • Registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860
Registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act,2008
Contract Labour (Regulation of Security Agency under Companies Act 1956/ Registrar of Firms, Odisha/ Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act 2005.
Registered under Shops & Establishment Act, 1956
(c) Demand Draft in support of Bid Document cost.
(d) Bid Security Declaration in lieu of EMD
(e) Copy of PAN card
(f) Copy of the IT return filed for the last three financial years
(g) Copy of valid labour license for at least 75 No’s pers
