JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Order/Notification bearing No.F6(35)A/PD- 4/DDA/2022/119 dated 21.04.2022 issued by the Respondent cancelling the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No.12/EE/PD-4/DDA/2021-22 dated

26.02.2022.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant writ petition are as under:

a) The Petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is engaged in carrying out the business of providing security guards, security supervisors, Gunmen, labour supplies placement, labour contractor, mechanized housekeeping, cleaning services and manpower Consultant and Consultancy Services etc.

b) The Respondent/DDA invited e-bids from the eligible bidders vide Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No.12/EE/PD-4/DDA/2021-22 dated 26.02.2022 for allotment of tender from specialized agencies, who have a valid license under the Private Security Agencies Regulation Act (PSARA), 2005, for providing round the clock security guards for watch and ward for sites and office complexes under the flyovers (specialized work).

The estimated cost of the work was Rs.1,17,96,435/- for 365 days. c) The Petitioner was one of the bidders for the aforesaid tender issued by the Respondent. The Petitioner submitted all the required documents and also submitted the quoted amount of Rs.1,12,40, 822.91/- vide letter dated 23.03.2022 to the Respondent.

d) It is stated in the writ petition that other entities have also participated in the aforesaid tender. The tender amounts quoted by the entities, namely, M/s Star Security and Placement services, M/s Friends Detective Security Services, M/s. Kushal Suraksha and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Rakshak Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Stallion Security were Rs. 88,00,140.51/-, Rs.88,00,140.51/-, Rs.88,47,326.25/-, Rs.88,74,458.05/- and Rs.88,87,434.13/-

respectively.

e) It is stated in the writ petition that all other entities quoted amounts much lesser than what is permissible i.e., amounts quoted by all other entities were lesser than the legal requirement of minimum wages to be paid to skilled category workmen.

f) It is further stated that the Respondent had neither awarded the tender nor cancelled it. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed a petition bearing W.P.(C) 6475/2022 before this Court praying that the tender should be awarded to the Petitioner herein who was the only responsive bidder in the tender as other entities had quoted the amounts below legal requirement of minimum wages payable to a worker under a skilled category. The advance notice was served upon the Respondent on 19.04.2022.

g) During the pending of the petition, the Respondent cancelled the tender vide Order/Notification bearing No. F6 (35) A / PD-4 / DDA /2022/119 dated 21.04.2022 without awarding it to the Petitioner herein.

h) Due to the cancellation of the tender, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the cancellation of tender vide Order/Notification bearing No.F6(35)A/PD-4/DDA/2022/119 dated 21.04.2022 issued by the Respondent.

3. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed the instant writ petition challenging the Order/Notification bearing No.F6(35)A/PD-4/DDA/2022/119 dated 21.04.2022 issued by the Respondent cancelling the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No.12/EE/PD-4/DDA/2021-22 dated 26.02.2022.

4. Notice was issued in the present petition on 28.04.2022. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the cancellation of the tender is completely arbitrary and bad in law. It is further submitted that the Petitioner's bid was the only responsive bid and the tender has been cancelled by the Respondent only to defeat the legitimate right of the Petitioner.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the estimated cost of the work as calculated by the Respo