High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 6382/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BK SHARMA Heard Mr A Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents.
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor in providi ng security services. Pursuant to the NIT dated 7.9.2004 calling for security an d surveillance contract at Betkuchi Oil Installation, Guwahati, the petitioner r esponded to the same by submitting tender. His tender having been accepted, the contract was awarded for 12 months with a renewal option for one year more. The period was w.e.f. 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005. The total value of the contract was Rs .22,15,709.69. As per the own admission of the petitioner it was unable to provide Armed Guards of Ex-servicemen due to the reason that gun licenses are not issued in the Stat e of Assam due to prevailing insurgency problems. However, efforts were being ma de by the petitioner to get Armed Guards of Ex-servicemen. By Annexure-8 communication dated 7.10.2006 the petitioner was informed by the r espondent Corporation that although as per the terms and conditions of the work order it was to supply 100% Ex-servicemen but in spite of repeated requests it f ailed to supply Ex-servicemen Armed Guards. On the other hand, the petitioner ha d been claiming full DGR rates for the non Ex-servicemen security guards. Accord ingly the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.4,46,987.10. The petitioner was also directed to replace all the non Ex-servicemen Armed Guards with Ex-Servicem en Guards. The aforesaid letter was replied to by Annexure-9 letter dated 25.10.2006 intima ting that purported steps being taken to replace the Security Guards with Ex-ser vicemen Guards. Thereafter the respondent Corporation issued the Annexure-10 let ter dated 10.11.2006 intimating the petitioner that reply was not satisfactory. It was also intimated that since there was no repayment the same will be recover ed from the due payments. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid action on the part of the respondent Corporation is not tenable in law, inasmuch as being satisfied with the work of the petitioner its term was extended by one year. Other ground assigned in the w rit petition are in paragraphs- 10,11 and 12 which are quoted below:- Para 10 : That the petitioner vide his letter dated 25.10.2006 informed the resp ondent No.3 that all along the petitioner was informing the authority regarding non availability of Armed Ex-servicemen as indicated clearly vide letter dated 12.4.2004. But all the unarmed guards deployed at the depot are ex-servicemen. T he petitioner also stated that the deduction made by the authority is illegal as there was no such information or intimation for such deduction for employing no n Ex-servicemen having valid gun license as Armed Guard. The authority never inf ormed the petitioner about such steps of deduction and took the impugned action unilaterally. Para 11 : That the respondent No.3 vide his letter dated 10.11.06 informed the p etitioner that the petitioner’s reply date 25.10.06 was not satisfactory and As such for not paying the amount in time, the same is to be recovered from the pe titioner’s bills. It is important to mention here that the H.P.C.L. Authority ha ve not made any payment since the month of August, 2006 with the preplanned inte ntion to make such impugned deduction. Para 12 : That the petitioner begs to state that during the period of providing service by deploying security guards no untoward incident took place and there i s no complaint of any loss suffered by the respondent Corporation. It is clear t hat being satisfied with the service provided by the petitioner in the year 2005 , the authority renewed the contract for another one year up to 31.12.2006. The bills received by the petitioner are paid regularly towards salary of the deploy ed persons and the petitioner receives only a meager amount as commission. Witho ut any notice the authority could not have made such deductions in the name of s emi-skilled labour, moreover, the petitioner constantly informed them about n on availability of Armed Ex-servicemen and also the reasons thereof. It was also indicated by the respondent authorities that recoveries be effected from the unp
Legal Reasoning
aid bills of the petitioner for n on deployment of Ex-servicemen as Armed Guards . If the authority were unhappy with the services of the petitioner then they ou ght not to have renewed the contract for a further period of one year i.e. up to 31.12.2006. As a matter of fact, the contract period, up to 31.12.2005 stood co mpleted and thus no question of deduction of the year 2005 can take place. The a uthority taking advantage of the situation made such deduction as petitioner’s b ills since August 2006, have not been paid by them. Above apart, the petitioner has also contended that in case of violation of term s and conditions of the contract the respondents could have terminated the contr act but instead extended the period of the contract being satisfied with the wor k of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that since there was violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondent Corporation had to make the impugned communications. It is the stand of the res pondent Corporation that since the petitioner was required to provide Ex-service men Armed Guards, upon its failure to do so the excess amount drawn by the petit ioner is recoverable. Mr Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no recovery has been made for the last 7 years in view of the interim order operating in this p roceeding and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has successfully comp leted the work entrusted to it, the respondent Corporation should take a lenient view of the matter even if there was some lapses on the part of the petitioner. He also submits that since the respondents were satisfied with the work of the
Decision
petitioner his term was extended by another one year. Considering the matter in its entirety, the writ petition is disposed of directi ng the respondent Corporation to re-visit the matter with a pragmatic effort and pass appropriate order considering the grounds urged in the writ petition. Let an appropriate order be passed by the respondents as expeditiously as possib le. Till the said exercise is carried out the interim order operating in this pr oceeding shall continue to operate.