A writ petition challenging the allotment of a tender for security guards to other agencies was dismissed. The court held that since the tender was awarded to better-equipped agencies and a similar petition was already dismissed, there were no grounds for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.418 OF 2005
Globe Private Detective Bureau (Regd.) ... Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. M.C. Shah i/b Mr. R. R. Sharma for the petitioner.
Mr. R.M. Sawant, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 4.
Mr. R.D. Suvarna for respondent 6.
Mr. T.R. Patil i/b Mr. D.R. Singh for respondent 7.
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI &
ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
DATED: 22ND NOVEMBER 2005.
P.C. :-
| 1. | The | petitioner | has, inte |
r alia, |
sought |
a | direction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| calling | upon | r | espondents | 1, 2, |
3 and |
4 to |
refrain | from |
| and/or | desist | f | rom allowi |
ng respond |
ents 5, |
6 and |
7 |
to |
| accept | and/or | to con |
tinue with |
the |
tender | work, | acting | |
| contrary | to | the | terms | and | conditions | of |
the | tender |
| document | as | well | as | acting | mala | fide |
against | the |
| statutory | obligati | ons | conferre | d on |
them | as | ‘public | |
| servants’ | and | in disch |
arging of |
their | duty | as | ‘public | |
| servants’ | in | accepting | and/or p |
roposing | to | accept | the | |
| said | offers | of | respondents | 5, 6 |
and | 7, for |
the | tender |
work as said offers are against the principles of
fair-play and natural justice.
: 2 :
| 2. | We have heard the learned counsel for |
the | petitioner. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Several | allegations of mala fides have been made |
in | the |
| petition. | We notice that on 19/1/2004, res |
pondent | 1 |
| advertised | a tender notice in the newspapers. |
On | |
| 16/2/2004, | the tender was opened and, after |
all | the |
| formalities | were completed on 31/12/2004, the |
tender | was |
| awarded | to (1) Bombay Intelligence Security |
(India), | (ii) |
| M/s. | Vishal Protection Force and (iii) M/s. |
Singh | |
| Security | Services. The petition is filed |
after | the |
| tender | has been awarded. It appears to us |
that | the |
| tender | has been awarded in favour of (1) |
Bombay | |
| Intelligence | Security (India), (ii) M/s. |
Vishal | |
| Protection | Force and (iii) M/s. Singh Sec |
urity | Services |
| after | evaluation of the tender documents because |
they | are |
| better | equipped to discharge the function of |
the | security |
guards. In such circumstances, we are unable to
interfere with the allotment of the tender.
| 3. | Besides | we find |
that | one | Jai Bhavani |
Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Services | India | Pvt. | Ltd. | had | filed Writ |
Petition |
| No.3147 | of 200 |
4 challenging |
the | same | tender. By |
speaking |
| order | dated | 2/12/2004, | the | said | petition was |
dismissed. |
| While | dismiss | ing the |
petition, | this | court observed |
that |
| the | petitioner | therein | i.e. | Jai Bhavani |
Security | |
| Services | India | Pvt. | Ltd. | has | not furnished |
affidavit |
| stating | that | no penal |
action | has | been imposed on |
the |
| agency | though | it was |
required | by | respondents 1 and |
2. |
| From | the evalu |
ation note, |
to | which | our attention has |
been |
: 3 :
| drawn | by | Mr. | Sawant, | we find |
that | even | the | present | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| petitioner | has | also | not | furnished | any | affidavi | t | stating | |
| that | no | penal | action | has been |
imposed | on | the | agency. | |
| Since | on | the | same | consideration, | the | petition | filed | by |
Jai Bhavani Security Services India Pvt. Ltd. has been
dismissed, we are unable to entertain this petition.
| 4. We |
may | note | that | the | learned couns |
el | for | the |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| petitioner | has | made | a griev |
ance | that the |
evalua | tion | note |
| to which |
Mr. | Saw | ant, the |
learned | A.G.P. | for | respo | ndents |
| 1 to |
4 has |
made | a reference, |
was |
not supplied |
to | him | and |
| it was |
tendered |
ac |
ross the |
bar. | Assuming | the | eva | luation |
| note wa |
s not |
shown | to the |
petitio | ner, that wo |
uld | make | no |
| difference, | because | even otherw |
ise i |
n view of |
the | fact | ||
| that the |
tender | has already |
been | awarded, we |
f | ind | no |
sound grounds for entertaining this petition. The
petition is rejected.
(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)
(ABHAY S. OKA, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with an allotment of a tender for security guards after it has been awarded to other agencies.
Whether a petition challenging a tender can be entertained when a similar petition challenging the same tender has already been dismissed.
Globe Private Detective Bureau (Regd.)
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board
Respondents 2 to 4
Respondents 5 to 7
Ranjana Desai
Abhay S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
