M/S Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) Ltd, through Its Director Raju Pandey Vs Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, through Its Vice Chancellor

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2488 of 2025

---

M/s Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) Ltd., having its registered office at Tiwari Mansion, Kamla Nagar, P.O.-Kokar, P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi, through its Director, Raju Pandey, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Janardan Pandey, R/o Booty, near MDLM Hospital, P.O.-Booty, P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, through its Vice Chancellor

¶8

The Registrar, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi

¶9

The Purchase Officer, Birsa Agricultural University, Head Quarter, Kanke, Ranchi

¶10

M/s Shiva Protection Force Private Limited, having its office at 3^rd Floor, R.C. Sahu Complex, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, through its Director, Rakesh Singh

¶11

…. … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate Mr. Janak Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate For Res. No. 4 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate

¶16

Reserved on 29.08.2025 Pronounced on 09.09.2025 Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :

¶17

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the Letter of Award dated 03.04.2025 issued by the Purchase Officer, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi (Respondent No.3) whereby the work related to E-Tender Ref. No. F-05/06/Security/Part-V with respect to providing security arrangement on contract basis at Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi (hereinafter referred as the said Tender), has been awarded to M/s Shiva Protection Force Private Limited (Respondent No. 4). Further prayer has been made for award of

¶18

¶19

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶20

the said tender in favour of the petitioner as it was declared L1 bidder and vide email dated 05.04.2025, it was informed that its bid was accepted by the duly constituted committee.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said tender was floated by the respondent-University in which the petitioner also participated. Thereafter, being declared technically qualified, the financial bids of all the bidders were opened on 05.04.2025 and the respondent-University communicated the petitioner vide e- mail 05.04.2025 that its financial bid was accepted by the duly Constituted Committee.

¶22

It is further submitted that on the same day i.e. on 05.04.2025, the BOQ Summary Details were uploaded in the e-procurement portal wherein the petitioner was shown as L-1 bidder in all respect. However, the respondent-University subsequently vide another e-mail dated 05.04.2025, informed the petitioner that its bid was not selected for award of contract by the duly Constituted Committee. The petitioner was further advised to visit the e-procurement portal for further details.

¶23

It is contended that the petitioner having visited the e-procurement portal found that a Letter of Award dated 03.04.2025 with respect to the said tender was issued by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent no. 4.

¶24

It is also submitted that Tender Summary Reports relating to all the nine bidders were uploaded on the e-procurement portal on 07.04.2025 wherein the petitioner was capriciously shown as L-5 bidder. The action of the respondents is actuated with malafide

¶25

¶26

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶27

and is also discriminatory in nature as well as against the express terms and conditions of the tender.

¶28

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the financial bids of all the bidders were opened on 28.01.2025 and as per the computer generated ranking, the petitioner was declared L1 bidder on the basis of wages proposed for various categories of security personnel, however on close scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner had quoted wages much below the minimum wages notified under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which was not only unacceptable but was also illegal. Consequently, the petitioner’s bid as L1 was rejected by the Central Purchase Committee (CPC).

¶29

It is further submitted that the bids of all nine bidders were examined and it was found that 8 out of 9 bidders had quoted the commission rate as 3.85% except M/s Security and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. (SIS), Ranchi, which had quoted 10% commission rate. As such, the bid of SIS was not considered due to high commission rate and the CPC thereafter examined the ‘Average Annual Turnover’ of rest eight bidders for last three financial years wherein it was found that the respondent no. 4 had the highest annual turnover of Rs. 80.82 crores as against the petitioner's annual turnover of Rs.45.39 crores which was fifth in the list. As such, the respondent no.4 was recommended by the CPC for award of the contract pertaining to the said tender. The CPC finalized the tender process on 11.03.2025 itself and the respondent no.3 intimated the respondent no.4 (the newly

¶30

¶31

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶32

selected agency) vide letter no. 1502 dated 03.04.2025 to submit its letter of acceptance by 07.04.2025 so to complete the further formalities.

¶33

It is also submitted that as per the tender document of the said tender, the respondent-University was in requirement of skilled security guards without arms which comes under skilled category mentioned in the notification dated 11.03.2024 issued by the Labour, Employment, Training & Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand as “Caneman (Lathi/Baton-Wielding)”. The basic rate of minimum daily wage fixed vide said notification for skilled category of workers in “C” category area was Rs.588/without Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA), whereas the petitioner had quoted the minimum daily wage for the said category of workers as Rs.446/- including VDA which was much below the minimum daily wage as provided under the said notification of the Government of Jharkhand.

¶34

It is further argued that BOQ pertaining to the tender document clearly mentioned that the minimum wages as notified by the Government of Jharkhand was to be revised from time to time. Moreover, before issuance of tender notice, the VDA connected with the basic minimum wages was revised w.e.f. 01.10.2024 vide Notification No.1846 dated 14.10.2024, whereas the rate quoted by the petitioner was much below the revised rate of minimum wages as notified on 14.10.2024.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the respondent no.4 was selected as successful bidder for the said

¶36

¶37

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶38

tender by the tender committee subsequent to which the letter of acceptance was submitted by it to the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 03.04.2025. Thereafter, 215 employees were deployed in the respondent-University by the respondent no.4.

¶39

It is further submitted that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the tender document as it had quoted the rate below the notified minimum wages. As such, its bid was rightly rejected by the CPC of the respondent-University.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶41

Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially declared as L1 bidder and its bid was accepted by the respondent-University, however subsequently the respondent-University arbitrarily awarded the tender to the respondent no.4.

¶42

The learned counsel for the respondent-University has countered the contention of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner had quoted the basic rate of daily wages much below the minimum wages fixed vide notification dated 11.03.2024 issued by the Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand and since no Agency or University could pay daily wages below the rate as mentioned in the said notification, the petitioner’s bid was rejected by the CPC. Since out of 9 bidders, 8 bidders had quoted the similar commission rate as 3.85% and one bidder, namely, SIS had quoted 10% commission rate, the said tender was awarded to the

¶43

¶44

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶45

respondent no.4 on the basis of average annual turnover of last three financial years.

¶46

To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the BOQ pertaining to the tender document wherein it was explicitly stipulated as under: -

¶47

“Rates should be as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Department of Labour Employment, Training & Skill Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, notification no.142 dated 11.03.2024.”

¶48

The petitioner has annexed a copy of the Notification dated 11.03.2024 issued by the Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand with its rejoinder to the counter affidavit dated 24.06.2025 wherein classification of Scheduled Employments has been made and the employment of workers engaged in Government Offices/ Undertakings/Boards & Local Bodies in the State of Jharkhand has been placed under Sl. No. 49 of Category ‘Ka’.

¶49

In the Notification dated 11.03.2024, revised basic rates of Minimum Wages for Scheduled Employments under Category ‘Ka’ have been prescribed and the wage quoted by the petitioner in its bid matches with the wages of Semi-Skilled persons. It is contended by the petitioner that the Security Guards (without arms) fall under Semi-skilled category and as such, the petitioner had quoted the minimum basic rate of daily wages prescribed for semi-skilled employment.

¶50

The stand of the respondent-University is that the security personnel required for the security work of the University come

¶51

¶52

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶53

under the category of skilled employment but the petitioner had not quoted the minimum basic wage prescribed for skilled labourers and as such, its bid was rejected as L1. However, the said stand of the respondent-University does not find support from the stipulation made in the Notification dated 11.03.2024.

¶54

Moreover, bare perusal of proceeding of the CPC reveals that the bid of the petitioner was not rejected, rather the bids of eight bidders including the petitioner who had quoted same rate of commission, were examined on the basis of average annual turnover of last three financial years wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.5.

¶55

The said tender was awarded to the respondent no. 4 on the ground that it had the highest annual turnover. If the petitioner had quoted the rate below the prescribed minimum basic wage, its bid was liable to be rejected. However, the respondent-University had not rejected the bid of the petitioner, rather the bids of different agencies were examined on the basis of average annual turnover of last three financial years. This clearly falsifies the claim of the respondent-University that since the petitioner had quoted the rate of wage below the prescribed minimum wage, its bid was rejected. The said stand is an afterthought just to justify its decision in not awarding the said tender to the petitioner. Moreover, the claim of the respondent-University that the petitioner had quoted the rate of wage below the prescribed minimum wage has been raised for the first time before this court.

¶56

¶57

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶58

In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and New Delhi & Others reported in

¶59

(1978) 1 SCC 405 the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

¶60

“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088]:

¶61

“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”

¶62

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”

¶63

Thus, the reason for passing an order cannot be supplemented by filing a counter affidavit and the validity of the order must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the order itself. An order which is bad in the beginning, cannot be validated by any additional ground brought out later.

¶64

¶65

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶66

The contention of the respondent-University that the minimum wages has further been revised vide Notification No. 1846 dated 14.10.2024 and the same would apply to the present tender, also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that in the tender document itself, it was stipulated that the rates of wages should be as per the prescribed rates of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the notification dated 11.03.2024 of the Department of Labour Employment, Training & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand.

¶67

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has put reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited Vs. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 446 . In the said case, it has been held that the essential conditions of tender are required to be strictly complied and there is no power to relax such condition. It has further been held that one of the tender conditions was that the salary paid to the manpower should not be less than minimum prescribed wage and if the quoted salary was less than the minimum prescribed wage, such bid was liable to be rejected. The respondent no. 1 of that case had quoted the rate much below the minimum wage prescribed by the Labour Department and as such, its bid was liable to be rejected. It has further been held that the other condition of the tender document was that the price quoted by the bidders had to be fixed one and no open-ended bid could be entertained, however, the price quoted by the respondent no.1

¶68

¶69

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶70

was open ended.

¶71

We are of the view that the said judgment is not applicable in the fact of the present case on two counts; one is that the respondents have failed to satisfy to this Court that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the tender, and the other is that the bid of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground that it had quoted the basic rate of wage less than the prescribed minimum wage. In fact, on bare perusal of proceeding of the CPC, it transpires that the bid of the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 5 on the basis of average annual turnover of last three financial years and the said tender was awarded to the respondent no.4.

¶72

So far as the selection of the bidder on the basis of average annual turnover of last three financial years is concerned, the respondents have failed to show any such stipulation in the tender notice which specifies that if the quoted commission rates of more than one bidders are equal, then the bidder will be selected on the basis of highest average annual turnover of last three financial years. Thus, we are of the view that the award of the said tender to the respondent no.4 is an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the respondent-University.

¶73

It is trite law that ordinarily in a matter of enforcement of a contract, a writ court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet where the action of the State or its instrumentality is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being wholly unfair and unreasonable, the writ court may issue suitable directions to set right such arbitrary

¶74

¶75

2025:JHHC:27309-DB

¶76

action.

¶77

Since eight bidders had quoted equal rate of commission, award of tender to any one bidder would certainly prejudice the interest of other bidders and as such it will be in the interest of justice to cancel the present tender.

¶78

The tender in question is thus ordered to be cancelled. The respondent-University is however at liberty to issue fresh tender for the said work.

¶79

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶80

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶81

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶82

A.F.R. Vikas/-

¶83

M/S Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) Ltd, through Its Director Raju Pandey v. Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, through Its Vice Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) Ltd, through Its Director Raju Pandey v. Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, through Its Vice Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girija Memorial Welfare Trust through Its Secretary Sneh Naman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Giridhar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Kamladitya Construction P Ltd. Represdent Thro Its Director R P Singh Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Triloki Nath Singh Director Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Jayanti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand