SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 54980

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Sachin Modi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 26434/2023



Advocates:
Piyush Parashar,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA ON THE 6th FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 26434 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

BALAJI SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRI SACHIN MODI S/O SHRI HEMENDRA MODI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 412, NAVNEET PLAZA, 5/2, OLD PALASIA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI SUMIT NEMA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PIYUSH PARASHAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FARMER WELFARE AND AGRICULTURE

1.

DEVELOPMENT ROOM NO. 213, VALLABH BHAWAN 1, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

MADHYA PRADESH STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD

2. THROUGH MANGING DIRECTOR 26 KISAN BHAWAN ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

M/S RB AASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, PLOT NO. 30, 4TH

3. FLOOR MAHARANA PRATAP NGAR ZONE, 2, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI RISHI TIWARI, ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ANSHUMAN JAT, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2).

(SHRI BRIEN D SILVA ,SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SOMESH AWASTHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 23.11.2023 Pronounced on : 06.02.2024 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition having been heard and reserved for order coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice S.A.

DHARMADHIKARI pronounced the following

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is inter alia challenging certain provisions included in impugned notice inviting tender (NIT) issued by the respondent no.2 as published on 06.09.2023 bearing Specification No. TS-001 and Tender No. 2023 – MPSAM-3850 for outsourcing of human resources required for various tasks at Mandi Board Divisional Office, Technical Division Office and Mandi Samiti/Committee Campus as well as impugned award of contract and work order dated 06.10.2023 issued by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no. 3 on the ground that the whole process in awarding the contract is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and biased.

2. Facts in nutshell are that petitioner is a private company and was incorporated on 01.04.1999 under the name and style 'M/s Balaji Detective and Security Services(India) Pvt. Limited. Thereafter, its name was changed to its present name vide Certificate of Incorporation dated 30.10.2015 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Gwalior under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. The respondent no.2 is a statutory authority created under the provisions of M.P. Krishi Upaj mandi Adhiniyam, 1972(hereinafter referred to as “ Adhiniyam, 1972”) and functions under the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 is “State”

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is an instrumentality of State.

3. Pursuant of the publication of NIT issued by the respondent no.2 on 08.09.2023inviting tender (Annexure P-2) dated 06.09.2023, for outsourcing of human resources required for various tasks at Mandi Board Divisional Office, Technical Division Office and Mandi Samiti/Committee Campus which functions for procurement of agricultural produce at the Local/District Level, the bidders submitted various objections which were responded by way of issuance of a corrigendum dated 25.09.2023.

4. Petitioner herein also submitted bid on 03.09.2023. The respondent no.3 and other bidders including the petitioner participated in the bid process. After submission of bids and after examining the bid submitted by the respondent no.3, it came to the knowledge of petitioner that certain specific/tailor made conditions have been incorporated in the tender specifications to eliminate all the other bidders including petitioner, basically to accommodate the respondent no. 3.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that being a state-authority under A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top