M/S Asman Ex-Serviceman Security Service v. The Senior Manager (Contracts) And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/93/2024 M/s Asman Ex-Serviceman Security Service Vs.

The Senior Manager (Contracts) and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the respondent nos.1&3 Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondent no.2 April 02, 2025 [SR] Item No.12 Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was preferred challenging a Notice Inviting e-Tender (NIT) dated 9th October, 2023 pertaining to 'contract for security and allied services at Port Blair LPG BP from Rajya Sainik Board sponsored agencies'. The said writ petition appeared before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 31st January, 2024. However, ex parte interim order, as prayed for, was refused.

Subsequent thereto, one 'Terrier Security & Detective Agency' was issued work order and as such the petitioner prayed for impleadment of the said firm and for amendment of the cause title/ relief/ and other portions of the writ petition. Such leave was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 9th February, 2024 and accordingly, the amended petition was filed. Subsequent thereto, parties were directed to exchange their affidavits and in response thereto, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 3.

Drawing my attention to the NIT, Mr. Kumar submits that the value of works for one year was fixed to be Rs.86,59,191/- including GST @ 18% and the value of works for three years was fixed to be Rs.2,59,77,572/- including GST @ 18%. Under clause 10 of the said notice pertaining to Evaluation Criteria, it was stipulated that the service charges would also be of 10% as laid down by DGR. In clause 3 of Evaluation Criteria as specified in serial no.10 of the NIT, it was been specified that 'in the eventuality of all the Rajya Sanik Board sponsored ESMs quoting the same rates the contract under consideration will be allotted to the senior most sponsored ESM'. In view of the clause and the fixed estimated value of work and service charges, the same person would emerge to be successful in all future tender processes.

Such anomaly needs to be ironed out and in view thereof, interference of this Court is called for. Records reveal that ex parte interim order was refused by an order dated 31st January, 2024. Subsequent thereto, the work order has been issued in favour of the respondent no.4 and the said firm is still continuing. Thus, rights stand crystallized in favour of the respondent no.4 and the prayer of Mr. Kumar for setting aside the NIT at this belated stage, is not acceptable.

Drawing my attention to letter dated 10th November, 2023 annexed at page 87 of the writ petition, Mr. Kumar submits that a decision has now been taken by the respondent no.2 that 'the seniority list henceforth will be on rotational basis for each fresh tender'.

Drawing my attention to paragraph 8 of the affidavit-inopposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 3, Ms. Nag,

learned senior advocate submits that the clarification, as provided in the said letter to the effect that 'the seniority list henceforth will be on rotational basis for each fresh tender, is accepted by the said authority and would be followed in the future tender processes.

In view thereof, no further interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is disposed of in view of the clarification given by the Rajya Sainik Board and as accepted by the respondent nos. 1 and 3.

( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )