G.S. & COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: - -

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered manpower supply agency and human resource contractor having vast and varied experience, and is also possessing the requisite statutory licenses. The respondent No. 1 in January, 2015 had issued a Request for Proposal (RFT) for outsourcing of 315 conservancy Safai Walas at the Station Head Quarters in Jaipur. The petitioner having qualified itself in the said tender, the work order was allotted to it on 29/4/2015 for executing the said work for the period from 1/4/2015 to 31/5/2016 as per the RFP annexed at Annexure -6. It appears that thereafter some dispute having arisen between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 had stopped making payment to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner had given a legal notice, seeking arbitration in terms of the agreement. Thereafter certain correspondence ensued between the parties but the dispute could not be resolved. The respondent No. 1 thereafter floated fresh tender for RFP (Annexure -5) for the period from 1/12/2015 to 31/3/2016, in which the following terms and conditions was incorporated in the eligibility criteria: - -

(3.) As per the case of the petitioner, the said condition of eligibility criteria was inserted intentionally and malafidely to debar the petitioner from participating in the said tender process, and to favour the respondent No. 4 and hence the petitioner has filed the petition, challenging the said condition 15(a) to the extent of excluding the experience with State Government/PSU from the eligibility criteria. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by filing the reply denying the allegations made therein and further contending inter alia that the petitioner having committed financial irregularities, audit objections were raised, and that the challans submitted by the petitioner were also found at variance with the names with which the agreement was signed, for which enquiry was constituted to investigate the issue. It has further been contended that since the petitioner had stopped the work of conservancy services, the respondents had floated the tender incorporating the terms and conditions, which were approved by the duly constituted Procurement Committee of the respondents. According to the respondents, inclusion/exclusion of certain terms and conditions in the tender or RFP is an ongoing evolutionary process, and there was no arbitrariness or malafide in inserting the condition No. 15(a) as alleged by the petitioner.