IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.NO.15508/2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S.AMARNATH EKAMBARAM SECURITY AGENCY, NO.24/2AGA, ABBAS ALI ROAD, SIVANCHETTY GARDEN P O, BENGALURU – 560 042, BY ITS PROPRIETOR AMARNATH EKAMBARAM. REGD. OFFICE AT:
NO.136, 3RD FLOOR, BYRATHY VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KOTHANOOR POST, BENGALURU – 560 077. ..PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHARAIAH A.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, D.H.Q P.O. NEW DELHI – 110011.
2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., HPCL, HP GREEN R & D KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, TARABANAHALLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, DEVANAGONTHI, BENGALURU – 560 067, BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R) …RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R1, SMT.H.R. RENUKA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT/SPONSORSHIP WITH RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM 31/05/2019 AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE DGR GUIDELINES WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER The petitioner, a retired defence Ex-servicemen is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to extend the term of the contract/sponsorship with respondent No.2 for a further period of two years from 31/05/2019 as contemplated in the Directorate General Resettlement (DGR) guidelines as per Annexure-A based on the representations at Annexure-F dated 10/01/2018, Annexure-G dated 14/01/2019 and Annexure-H dated 01/04/2019.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-serviceman Welfare has issued a memorandum on 09/07/2012 through Directorate enabling the ex- servicemen to enter into a contract with Government or State Government. Based on the guidelines issued as per Annexure-A dated 23/02/2006, the petitioner empanelled with the DGR on 11/06/2015 and obtained a licence from the Commissioner of Police to run the security agency in the State of Karnataka on 26/03/2016. On 24/03/2017 respondent No.2 issued sponsorship in favour of the petitioner to provide 50 guards. Accordingly, on 31/05/2017 respondent No.2 issued purchase order to the petitioner. The term of the contract is for two years commencing from the date of purchase order dated 31/05/2017.
3. Being aggrieved by the sponsor of lesser number of guards compared to the sanctioned strength, petitioner gave representation on 10/01/2018 to respondent No.1 seeking additional sponsorship. As the term of contract was about to expire on 31/05/2019, petitioner gave two more representations dated 14/01/2019 and 04/01/2019. Inspite of such representations made by the petitioner for extension of security contract, respondent No.1 has not considered nor passed any orders. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections and contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Annexure-A dated 23/02/2006 relied upon by the petitioner is no longer in force. Memorandum dated 09/07/2012 issuing guidelines for functioning of DGR Empanelled Ex-servicemen for security services along with amendments supersedes earlier guidelines and instructions issued by the DGR . Respondent No.2 further contended that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the relevant facts. It is further contended that the DGR guidelines dated 23/02/2006 have been replaced by new DGR guidelines dated 09/07/2012. It is further contended that the petitioner agency has quoted 50 security guards and the same does not suit the requirement of respondent No.2, as the present requirement is 110 security guards. In the sponsorship letter dated 10/03/2019 the name of the petitioner has not been shown by respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and hence respondent No.2 sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri. A.N.Gangadhar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in not considering the representations at Annexures-F, G and H, is illegal, unjust and contrary to the guidelines as per Annexure-A. Due to the wrong action on the part of respondent No.1, petitioner has incurred heavy financial loss. He would further contend that it is the duty of respondent No.1 to maintain transparency in sponsorship as per the guidelines at Annexure-A. The petitioner is going to attain the age of 60 years. Respondent No.1 may not issue additional sponsorship which is essential for another two years, since there is no age limit for continuation of the contract. Hence, he sought to allow the petition.
7. Though the respondent No.1 has not filed objections to the writ petition, it is contended that admittedly after accepting sponsorship of the petitioner on 24/03/2017, purchase order was issued on 31/05/2017 for 50 guards. If really he was having lesser than what was allotted to him, he ought to have approach this Court within a stipulated time and when once he has accepted and enjoyed the sponsorship allotted by the authorities for nearly two years as on the date of filing of the writ petition, he cannot approach this Court at the belated stage which amounts to estoppel. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on instructions submits that in view of non-performance, the empanelment of the petitioner has already been cancelled on 20/06/2018. He also submits that the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the DGR is from 11/01/2015 to 10/06/2018, which has expired. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 while reiterating the statement of objections filed to the present writ petition vehemently contended that Annexure-A guidelines produced by the petitioner is not in existence as on 09/07/2012, in view of the memorandum of guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex- serviceman Welfare. She invited the attention of the Court to the quota of guards. As per Clause - 15 of the guidelines, the quota for each sponsored Ex-servicemen will be upto 120 guards per year. The sponsorship will be valid for 2 years upto the age of 60 years of ESM(O) however, actual sponsorship will depend on demand and no guarantee in this regard. The sponsorship letter will clearly indicate the date upto which the sponsorship is valid. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that Annexure-A guidelines prevail the validity and the validity certificate has expired on 10/06/2018. The licence issued by the Commissioner of Police has also expired. It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the lesser number of 50 guards sponsored instead of 120 as per Annexure-A, he has approached the concerned authorities/ Respondent No.1 as per representations at Annexures-F, G and H for extension of the contract within the time stipulated and the petitioner made representation as long back as on 10/01/2018 within the validity of the sponsorship period. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has not filed objections to the averments/allegations made in the writ petition. The representation made by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondent No.1 for extension of contract within a reasonable period and for passing appropriate orders. The same has not been done. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.
10. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, without adverting to the contentions urged by the counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2, it is suffice to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 10/01/2018 Annexure-F, Annexure-G dated 14/01/2019 and Annexure- H dated 01/04/2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such consideration, respondent No.1 shall not issue any purchase order in favour of the new agency/sponsorship.
11. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
All contentions of the parties are left open to be urged at the appropriate/relevant point of time.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu