M/S. Dhanna Ram Siyag Security Agency vs. Gail (INDIA) LTD. Through Chief Managing Director

Held

The Court held that Clause 26 of the DGR Guidelines is applicable to situations where a contract is already in currency and an individual attains 60 years of age during its subsistence. It is not applicable to the award of a new contract when the individual has already crossed the upper age limit before the commencement of the contract. The general rule of assessing eligibility on the date of application or last date of furnishing the form cannot be applied when age is a disqualification. In this case, the Petitioner attained the age of 60 years on September 6, 2019, prior to the scheduled commencement of the contract on September 16, 2019, rendering him ineligible. The Court found that awarding the contract to the Petitioner would mean awarding it to someone ineligible on the very first day of the contract, which was not the intention of Clause 26. The cited judgment in Sunil Dutt Sharma did not support the Petitioner's case as the facts were distinguishable.

Facts

M/s. Dhanna Ram Siyag Security Agency (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its technical bid for a security contract issued by GAIL (India) Ltd. (Respondent). The Petitioner's empanelment certificate, issued by the Directorate General Resettlement (DGR), was valid until September 6, 2019, while the contract execution date was September 16, 2019. The Petitioner submitted its bid on August 14, 2019. The Respondent communicated that the Petitioner was disqualified because its empanelment certificate was expiring before the contract execution date, and the Petitioner had attained the age of 60 years, which, as per DGR guidelines, ceases the validity of empanelment. The contract was awarded to M/s. Mahendra Singh Jodha for a total value of Rs. 4,67,64,902.45 (including GST) for Abu Road and Rs. 2,07,98,909.18 (including GST) for Ramgarh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner was eligible for the security contract when its empanelment certificate was valid on the date of advertisement, tender submission, and technical bid opening, despite its expiry before the contract execution date? 2. Whether Clause 26(a) of the DGR Guidelines, stating that the validity of empanelment ceases upon attaining 60 years of age, applies to the award of a new contract when the individual attains 60 years prior to the commencement of the contract? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that it was eligible because its empanelment certificate was valid on the crucial dates of advertisement, tender submission, and technical bid opening. It relied on Clause 26 of the DGR Guidelines, contending that it was entitled to carry out the contract even after attaining 60 years of age, as the clause allows existing contracts to run to completion. The Petitioner cited Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. Chief Regional Manager, H.P.C. Ltd. & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 662 in support. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Respondent did not file a formal reply, but the Court considered the reasons provided for rejection. The Court's reasoning implicitly addressed the Respondent's position that eligibility must be assessed as of the contract commencement date and that attaining 60 years constitutes a disqualification for a new contract.