Petitioner seeks for a direction to the 4th respondent to review the contract awarded to any non-sponsored agency violating the policy instructions contained in Exts.P1, P2 and P3 and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to take action against the 4th respondent for violating Ext.P3 direction.
2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the Government of India has issued instructions in the form of Exts.P1 to P3 directing Public Sector Organisations to give contract in respect of security service only to sponsored Ex-servicemen security agencies. The empanelling of such agencies is done by the Director General of Resettlement (DGR). Those Public Sector Organisations which requires to engage security agencies have to approach the 3rd respondent to obtain the panel of such agencies and only to those among them that the security works could be awarded.
3. The complaint of the petitioner is with respect to the 4th respondent. It is inter alia contended that though by Ext.P5 dated 07/08/2013, the 3rd respondent sponsored three empanelled agencies to the 4th respondent for awarding contracts, the 4th respondent unilaterally awarded the contract to a private security agency. This, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Central Government and hence the writ petition is filed seeking the reliefs as prayed for.
4. Statement is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent inter alia stating that they had taken a decision in 2003 to avail security services by an agency sponsored by the 3rd respondent. In the year 2011, they have engaged a security agency sponsored by the 3rd respondent for a period of two years from 01/09/2011. Though the contract provided for the said agency to comply with certain requirements, it is contended that they have failed to provide security guards as per the contract during the initial few months and from December 2012 onwards. The agency provided only an average of 29 security guards as against the requirement of 52. Despite repeated requests the agency did not provide sufficient security guards. The agency informed its inability to provide the required security guards due to non- availability of security personnel. They were also claiming additional amounts other than what was agreed upon. This matter was informed to the 3rd respondent and request was made to sponsor a new agency. There was no reply and they did not sponsor another agency. Hence it was decided to invite tenders to select competent security agency. Tenders were issued on 13/06/2013. Three parties were shortlisted and an agency by name Private Eye Pvt. Ltd was awarded the work for a period of two years from 01/09/2013. It is therefore contended that there was no deliberate laches on the part of the 4th respondent in engaging an agency sponsored by Director General of Resettlement and they had to engage a private agency only on account of the aforesaid factual situations.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Having regard to the nature of contentions urged, even if a security agency is sponsored by DGR, still if the said agency has not performed the terms of contract, it is not possible for any authority to continue the said contract. As far as public sector organisations are concerned, they can only request the DGR to provide a list of sponsored agencies. If such list is not available, they are entitled to make alternate arrangements. In the case on hand, a situation, as contended by the 4th respondent, resulted in a private agency being appointed as security personnel. In such circumstances, a person like the petitioner cannot insist that the 4th respondent should be called upon to engage only agencies from the panel of DGR.
In view of the aforesaid factual situation, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a valid case for interference by this Court in order to grant the relief, as prayed for.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr