M/S Asman Ex-Serviceman Security Service vs. The Senior Manager (Contracts) And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Asman Ex-Serviceman Security Service, challenged a Notice Inviting e-Tender (NIT) dated 9th October, 2023, for security and allied services at Port Blair LPG BP. The NIT stipulated that in case of equal rates quoted by Rajya Sainik Board sponsored agencies, the contract would be awarded to the senior-most sponsored ESM. The petitioner argued this clause created an anomaly, potentially leading to the same person winning all future tenders. An interim order was refused, and a work order was subsequently issued to a third party, Terrier Security & Detective Agency. The petitioner sought impleadment of this firm and amendment of the petition. Later, a letter dated 10th November, 2023, indicated a decision to implement a rotational seniority list for future tenders.
Held
The Court held that no further interference was called for in the present writ petition. Regarding the first issue, the Court noted the petitioner's contention about the anomaly in the NIT's evaluation criteria, specifically the clause favoring the senior-most ESM in case of equal bids. However, the Court was presented with a subsequent development: a letter dated 10th November, 2023, indicating a decision by the respondent no.2 (Rajya Sainik Board) to implement a rotational seniority list for each fresh tender. The respondents confirmed that this clarification was accepted and would be followed in future tender processes. Consequently, the Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the NIT clause had been addressed by this subsequent administrative decision. Regarding the second issue, the Court acknowledged that an ex parte interim order had been refused on 31st January, 2024, and a work order had subsequently been issued to a third party, Terrier Security & Detective Agency, which was still continuing. The Court considered this a crystallization of rights in favor of the third party, making the petitioner's prayer to set aside the NIT at a belated stage unacceptable. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of based on the clarification provided and accepted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the clause in the NIT stipulating award to the senior-most ESM in case of equal rates is arbitrary and requires interference by this Court, considering its potential to create an unfair advantage in future tenders. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief at this stage, given that an interim order was refused and a work order has already been issued to a third party. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the clause in the NIT regarding awarding the contract to the senior-most ESM in case of equal rates was an anomaly that needed to be rectified. They argued that this provision would unfairly benefit a single individual in all subsequent tender processes. They also highlighted a subsequent decision to implement a rotational seniority list for future tenders as evidence of the flaw in the original NIT clause. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, through their learned senior advocate, submitted that the clarification provided in the letter dated 10th November, 2023, which stated that the seniority list would henceforth be on a rotational basis for each fresh tender, had been accepted by the relevant authority and would be followed in future tender processes. They argued that this clarification rendered further interference by the Court unnecessary.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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-in- opposition 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. )
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.