Dismissed

M/S Devajyoti Brahma Security Agency, Bbsr v. the Secy.,Dept. of Ex-Service Man Welfare, New Delhi

Orissa HC5 Jan 2023WP(C)/197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the award of a security contract to a third party without extending the petitioner's contract. Court held petitioner lacked locus standi as the contract was for one year extendable only on mutual consent, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the award following the expiry of the contract term.

M/S Devajyoti Brahma Security Agency, Bbsr… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Petitioner

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 197 of 2023

¶3

M/s. Devajyoti Brahma Security ….. Agency, Bhubaneswar

¶4

Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Secretary, Department of ….. Opposite parties Ex-Serviceman Welfare under Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI Ministry of Defence of Govt. of India, New Delhi & Ors.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY

¶9

ORDER 05.01.2023

¶10

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶11

¶12

Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the letter dated 29.12.2022 under Annexure-10, by which the authority has awarded the contract to opposite party no.12 for providing security personnel at office/depots under FCI, DO, Sambalpur without extending the period of contract of the petitioner after expiry of one year.

¶14

Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner along with others participated in the bid for providing security personnel at office/depots under FCI, DO, Sambalpur. One Umakanta Behera Security Agency was the highest bidder and the

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

petitioner was second in the list. Accordingly, contract was awarded to Umakanta Behera Security Agency for a period of two years, but for some reasons or other it was not agreed to execute the contract. Thereafter, the petitioner, being stood second in the list, was awarded with the contract, vide Annexure-5 dated 10.01.2022 for a period of one year subject to further extendable on mutual consent for another period of one year on same rates, terms and conditions as laid down in the technical bid. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was allowed to discharge its duty and responsibility for a period of one year. It is contended that after expiry of one year, the authority, without extending the period of contract of the petitioner, has awarded contract in favour of opposite party no.12, vide Annexure-10 dated 29.12.2022. Therefore, it is contended that such action of the authority is unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law.

¶17

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that admittedly the petitioner was allowed to provide security personnel at office/depots under FCI, DO, Sambalpur for a period of one year, vide Annexure5 dated 10.01.2022, which was further extendable on mutual consent for another period of one year on same rates, terms and conditions as laid down in the technical bid. but for some reasons or other, the authority did not extend the period of contract for another one year and awarded the contract in favour of opposite party no.12 vide Annexure-10 dated

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

29.12.2022. Therefore, with the expiry of one year, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the said letter dated 29.12.2022 under Annexure-10. More so, as per terms and conditions of the contract, the petitioner entered into agreement for a period of one year, but the said period shall be extended on mutual consent for another period of one year. 6. Therefore, this Court does not find any error on the face of the record or illegality committed by the authority in awarding the contract in favour of opposite party no.12. Thereby, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Alok

¶21

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(B.P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE

¶22

Page 3 of 3

M/S Devajyoti Brahma Security Agency, Bbsr v. the Secy.,Dept. of Ex-Service Man Welfare, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Devajyoti Brahma Security Agency, Bbsr v. the Secy.,Dept. of Ex-Service Man Welfare, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Maheswar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Narendranath Sethi @ Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Maa Palasbudhi Electrical and Civil Construction, Jajpur Vs Tpnodl, Balasore

M/S.Rkd Tribeni Jv, Chandaka Vs East Coast Railways, Chandrasekharpur

Kamalakanta Panda Vs State