Black Cat Securitas & Allied Services v. National Institute Of Open Schooling & ORS

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2856/2016 BLACK CAT SECURITAS AND ALLIED KUMAR KARTIKEYA SERVICES ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.Ravi Sikri, Sr.Adv.

instructed by Mr.Kumar Kartikeya, Mr.Jainendra Maldahiyar, Mr.Deepak Yadav, Advs.

versus NATIONAL INSTITUE OF OPEN SCHOOLING AND ORS ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr.S.Rajappa, Adv. for R-1.

Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr.Suresh C.Sati, Ms.Mahima Bahl, Mr.Pradeep C.Sati, Advs. for UOI/R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 31.03.2016 CM 11969/2016 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2856/2016 1.

Relevant record has been produced and qua the petitioner we find it being disqualified. We reproduce the tabular statement containing reasons why petitioner was disqualified. The same would be as under: W.P.(C) 2856/2016 Page 1 of 3

S.No.

Name & address of firm Total of column 04, 05 & 06.

`999564.05 07/09 M/s Black Cat Securitas & Allied Services Basic requisite as per Rule A.Basic+ VDA B.EPF-13.36% C.ESI-4.75% D.Leave Relief 1/6 E.Service Charge Supervisor (for 1 person) `11180/- `1493.64 `531.05 `2200.78 As Claimed `15405.47 (total wages) X 6 person `92432.82 Gunman (for 1 person) `11180/- `1493.64 `531.05 `2200.78 As Claimed `15405.47 (total wages) X 9 person `138649.23 Security Guard (for 01 person) `10140/- `1354.70 `481.65 `1996.05 As Claimed `13972.40 (total wages) X 55 person `768482 `11180/- `1493.64 `531.05 `1863.33 `15068.02 0.11 `15068.13 (total wages) X 6 person `90408.78 `11180/- `1493.64 `531.05 `1863.33 `15068.02 0.11 `15068.13 (total wages) X 9 person `135613.17 `10140/- `1354.70 `481.65 `1690.00 `13666.35 0.10 `13666.45 (total wages) X 55 person `751654.75 `977676.70 A.

B.

C.

D.1/6 of A Total E.@.001% Grand Total Service Tax 14.5% Other Charges Claimed by the firm.

Uniform A.Bonus B.Gratuity C.Washing Allowance D.EDLI E.Labour Fund REMARKS.

As applicable NOT RECOMMENDED -Leave Relief 16.67% claimed only on basic plus VDA in place of 1/6 on Basic plus VDA plus EPF plus ESI Not Quoted 2.

Relevant record has been shown to learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

3.

It is trite that in a matter pertaining to tender where no condition of a tender is under challenge the Court's job is to see fairness in the evaluation process. In the instant case the evaluation process is simple mathematics. No mathematical error is pointed out.

4.

Petition is dismissed.

W.P.(C) 2856/2016 Page 2 of 3

CM 11968/2016 (stay) Dismissed as infructous.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

MARCH 31, 2016 'ga'

W.P.(C) 2856/2016 Page 3 of 3