The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a GeM contract for manpower deployment. The Court held that the dispute was purely contractual and found no manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the State's actions, noting allegations of misconduct by the petitioner.
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.
$~71
Through: Mr. Gaurav Verma, Mr. Anant Sagar Tiwari and Ms. Mohini Chaubey, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Pradyut Kashyap, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 03.09.2024
2 “MTS”
W.P.(C) 12217/2024 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:56
manpower by 1st August, 2024. However, the Petitioner failed to meet this obligation. As a result, the GEM Contract was terminated by Respondent No.1 through the communication dated 16th August, 2024.3 This termination was carried out in accordance with the terms of the GEM Contract, which entitles the Buyer/Respondent No.1 to impose certain deductions. The relevant portion of the Impugned letter of termination reads as follows:
3 “Impugned letter”
W.P.(C) 12217/2024 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:56
“x. In case if the Buyer has selected the option in the bid for retention of existing resource/resources of previous service provider, then service provider shall retain those resources. In such cases, the Buyer shall be responsible for ensuring the qualification eligibility of those resources as per the contract requirement. Any extra costs incurred by Service provider for onboarding those resources on their payroll shall be borne by Service Provider. Service Provider shall include any such costs in the service charges quoted by them during the bid participation.”
Additionally, under Clause 4.2(ix) of the GEM Contract, the Petitioner was obligated to undertake the police verification, as well as character and antecedents’ verification, of the manpower to be deployed. Given these contractual obligations, it was crucial for the Petitioner to carry out the verification and documentation process for all the manpower; failure to do so would constitute a breach of the GEM Contract. The Petitioner had informed the manpower previously employed, to submit all necessary statutory documents required for registration and verification. However, they did not comply with this request. This lack of cooperation was
4 “Constitution”
W.P.(C) 12217/2024 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:56
promptly communicated to Respondent No. 1 through a letter dated 31st July, 2024, in which the Petitioner also sought an extension of time until 11th August, 2024, to complete the process. Despite these efforts, the previous contractual staff continued to be uncooperative, compelling the Petitioner to seek a further extension through another communication dated 11th August, 2024. Nevertheless, on 16th August, 2024, Respondent No. 1 proceeded to terminate the GEM Contract. Subsequently, the Petitioner completed the verification process on 20th August, 2024, and communicated a list of proposed candidates to the Respondents on 21st August, 2024. Despite fulfilling the compliance requirements, the manpower deployed by the Petitioner was denied entry by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner argues that, since the Respondents had specifically instructed the retention of manpower previously engaged by the former contractor and given that these personnel did not cooperate with the verification and documentation process, the resulting delay should not be solely attributed to the Petitioner.
W.P.(C) 12217/2024 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:56
subject matter of the present petition revolves around a purely contractual dispute stemming from the alleged non-fulfilment of contractual obligations by the Petitioner. In matters that are inherently contractual in nature, where the parties’ adherence to the specific terms and conditions of the agreement is in question, this Court exercises restraint in invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While there are instances where this Court has entertained writ petitions involving contractual disputes, such intervention is called for in cases where there is clear evidence of state action that is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, thereby necessitating judicial review to prevent a miscarriage of justice. However, based on the facts presented and the arguments advanced by the parties, no such grounds for arbitrariness or unreasonableness appear to exist in the current matter that would warrant this Court’s interference under its extraordinary jurisdiction.
W.P.(C) 12217/2024 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:56
deploying manpower, failure to submit the Performance Bank Guarantee within the stipulated timeframe, and the alleged demand for additional payment from the existing contractual staff — renders it unreasonable to compel them to continue their contractual relationship with the Petitioner.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 d.negi
W.P.(C) 12217/2024 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:56
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the termination of a GEM contract on grounds of alleged state arbitrariness?
Whether the petitioner's failure to deploy manpower and submit guarantees warrants judicial intervention?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Global Ventures
Govt. NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
