Ciss Services Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Two writ petitions challenge disqualification of the petitioner's bids in a GeM tender floated by the Ministry of Culture through ASI for unarmed security guards. The petitioner claims its SBI cash-care contract meets the experience clauses; the respondent contends those were not 'security services'. Arguments concluded.
What the court decided
- IN THEGCOURFDLAW
Resrvd on : 08 th July, 205
Pronuced : 01 st Augst 205
+ W.P(C) 792/05, CM APL. 3905/2 & CM APL.
3906/25 .
+ W.P(C) 80/25, CM APL. 3962/05 & CM APL.
396/205 .
RVLTD CIS E P eti onr .
roug:T h Mr. AiMoan, Sr sh . Adv with
M r . Au shian ,M. ShmrdB
a, Mr. Santosh KusS h , w ah
Advs.
s ver
FDA&RS. NIO U dtR es po n.
roug:T h Mr. kamJeV i ly, t GSwhs C
Shreya Jetly, Adv, Mr. Navn, e
kulPfR Go M r . S A , - 1 &2.
Mr. Anupam Kishore Sinha with
Mr. Pradp K T e war, Mr. i
rv o Ap Jha, Mr. hity S a
t, AdfoR vas S r i - 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE TCIFJUS
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICADY
JUDGMENT
ANISH DYL,J.
1. es Thonhav ti p e bnfd l eing k s quahi of e ot hprain
d i an uce s f w o k r des ot d .3( on sp e r I L S mted i ) in rspct e
of the ndrs t e bearing numbers 4B5973 /20 GEM and
73 9 4B5 /20 GEM (” the ndrs ‘).
W.P (C)No792/05and8 Page 1 of 3 2
| 2. Respondt .1( |
Minstry ofCultre, Uniof India) | isued | the | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tendrs on 26 thJuly204, guards for protecdmonuets located in the Southern and Central |
requistong servic of unarmed security |
|||
| regions fIda ; morespcifal |
,requimnt of925ad381 | |||
| securitygad,pvl. | ||||
| 3. The said tendr proceswasintaed on the Governmt e |
||||
| Marketplc (” GeM |
‘) platform . Archaeolgi Suvyof India |
( ”ASI | ‘)/ | |
| respondt .2wahbficyuj | ||||
| 4. Petionr,acompnyregistdun theCompanis Act**,**2013 |
||||
| claims tobengdhufprv endoutsrcedsolutin andservic forsector wher security and |
- | to | ||
| safetyrikaeconsidrastregicha. Petionrclams tohave | ||||
| p an - India presnc and |
and provide sservic toinstuo, banks, and |
|||
| various genmtdk. | ||||
| 5. Petionrsubmdit bdon 13 |
thAugst204,anexig self | |||
| declartion of itsexprinc from the year20, | in compl | iance of |
of | |
| requimnts ofthendr |
. | |||
| 6. Ther wer 76 biders on the portal. On 23 technial bids wer opend, and 75 of the 76 biders,includg |
rdDecmbr204, | |||
| petionr, wdsqualf.The | only bid remaing wspodt |
|||
| no.3,whasrdetc | ||||
| 7. On th |
e GeM porta | l, | the | reason |
| disquali | fication was does not ful l filthe parmet |
— namely |
requid | |
| exprinchdsqualf | “. |
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner satisfied the past-experience clauses (clause 2 and clause 5) stipulated in the GeM tender documents for unarmed security guard services.
Whether the petitioner's SBI contract for 'cash care' services qualifies as 'similar services' experience for the security services tender.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner company registered under the Companies Act, 2013
- respondent
Ministry of Culture, Union of India
- respondent
Archaeological Survey of India
- respondent
Respondent no. 3 (sole remaining bidder)
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court