Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 265 (JK)

Knights Security Services v. Union Of India

2008-06-30

J.P.SINGH

body2008
1. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited entered into an agreement with M/s. Knights Security Services, the petitioner, permitting it to provide security services for Sewa Hydroelectric Project Stage-II at Khairi. This agreement had to remain in force from January 12, 2004 to January 11, 2005, subject however, to its earlier termination by one months notice, in writing, from either side. Clause 22 of this agreement, however, provided that upon satisfactory performance by the party of the agreement, Project office will have the option to extend the agreement by two years on the same terms and conditions. 2. Invoking clause 22 of the agreement, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a command against the respondents to refrain from terminating arbitrarily the contract/arrangement of the petitioner for providing security services to Sewa Hydroelectric Project Stage -II, otherwise than in accordance with the guidelines for the functioning of the security agencies as published by the Directorate General (Re-settlement), Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. Petitioner seeks yet another direction against the Corporation to refrain from calling for, processing of and allotting the contract of security services before January 11, 2007. 3. Petitioner has stated in its petition that it had been allowed by the Corporation to continue working, as such, up to January 11, 2006, i.e., for one more year on the existing terms and conditions, and in the meanwhile, the Corporation had invited offers from other contractors as well to consider allotment of work for providing security services to the one who was found suitable therefor. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition saying that as the performance of petitioner was satisfactory so the respondent-Corporation was bound to extend the contract for another two years in terms of clause 22 of the Contract agreement. 5. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited submits, in its objections, that the petitioner had no right to seek any further extension of the agreement because it had, on its own, expired by virtue of clause 7 thereof, and with that had perished clause 22 thereof as well. According to the Corporation, the later stipulation in Clause 22 would not confer any right on the petitioner to seek extension of the agreement. According to the Corporation, the later stipulation in Clause 22 would not confer any right on the petitioner to seek extension of the agreement. This clause, according to it, speaks of the privilege of the Corporation to extend, and in that event, for a term, it may so decide, in this behalf, subject however, to the outer limit mentioned therein or even not to extend the agreement at all. It is the specific case of the Corporation that clause 22 does not, in any event, cast any obligation on the respondents to extend the closing date of the agreement and would not as such entitle the petitioner to any right to seek extension of the terms of the contract. 6. It is stated by the Corporation that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as it had concealed necessary and material facts. It is stated that the Corporation had allowed the petitioner to provide security services at Sewa Hydroelectric Project Stage-II for another one year from January 12, 2005 to January 11, 2006 on the existing terms and conditions and the petitioner had accepted the extension of the agreement for one year. This agreement too had expired on January 11, 2006. It is further stated that before the expiry of the aforesaid agreement of extended one year, the Corporation had sought sponsorship of security agencies, in response whereto, the Directorate General (Re-settlement) had sponsored five such agencies namely, M/s. Sting Security and Secret Service, Jammu, M/s. Jasrotia Security Agency, Jammu, M/s. Knight Security Agency, Chandigarh, M/s. RGB Security Solutions Pvt. Limited, Pathankot and M/s. Master Security, Jammu. 7. Pursuant to this sponsorship, the Corporation had, accordingly, invited quotations of rates and terms and conditions for providing security services at Sewa Hydroelectric Project Stage-II from the aforementioned sponsored agencies in response whereto all the sponsored agencies except M/s. Master Security, Jammu had submitted their respective quotations. 8. Petitioner-M/s. Knights Security Agency, Chandigarh too had responded to it by its communication dated October 19, 2005. Pursuant to the receipt of quotations of the four sponsored agencies including the petitioner, the Tender Opening Committee had held its meeting in the office of Senior Manager (Technical) at Mashka on November 22, 2005, which among others was attended by Lt. Col. G. P. S. Virk of petitioner-Agency. The tenders were opened in their presence. Pursuant to the receipt of quotations of the four sponsored agencies including the petitioner, the Tender Opening Committee had held its meeting in the office of Senior Manager (Technical) at Mashka on November 22, 2005, which among others was attended by Lt. Col. G. P. S. Virk of petitioner-Agency. The tenders were opened in their presence. M/s. Sting Security and Secret Services was found to be the best suitable agency for providing the security services by the Evaluation Committee and, therefore, the contract of security services at Sewa Hydroelectric Project Stage-II was allotted to it from January 12, 2006. 9. The Corporation has annexed copies of some of the letters issued by the petitioner-agency to its own security personnel, along with its objections, perusal whereof demonstrates that the petitioners Security Agency had accepted the termination of its contract on January 11, 2006. One of such letters reads as follows:- "KNIGHTS SECURITY SERVICES TERMINATION OF CONTRACT Sir, Please refer to your services as security services with this firm at NHPC Kheiri. It is for your information that the security contract of NHPC Kheiri with this firm is coming to an end on 11 Jan 2006. You are hereby given 30 days of notice that your services shall not be required after 11 Jan 2006. You shall be entitled for all the dues as per rules. Please acknowledge the receipt. Yours Truly. Sd/ G.P. S. Virk. M/s. Knights Secuirty Copy to: The Deputy Manager (HR) Sewa HE project Stage II, NHPC, Kheiri Mashka Distt. Chamba (H.P)." 10. Departure reports signed by the Security personnel employed by the petitioner-security agency too have been placed on record by the Corporation. One such departure reports is reproduced hereunder: - "Col.(Retired) GPS Virk Proprietor M/s. KNIGHTS SECURITY SERVICES 5689 m. m. Complex Chandigarh Admn. Office SCF-125,Phase 3B-2 Mohali (Pb). DEPARTURE REPORT Sir, Please refer to your Notice for termination of my service wef 11 Jan 2006, served vide your letter Ref. No. ......... .KNIGHTS/1 dated 01 Dec 2005. I hereby submit my departure report from M/S. KNIGHTS SECURITY SERVICES, as required vide your Notice mentioned at para-1 above, and cease to be part of your security set up with NHPC-SEWA HE Project Stage II. W.e.f 11 jan 2006 (After Noon). You are requested to release gratuity and other related dues to me at earliest. Name: Yours faithfully, Date: 11 Jan. 2006. W.e.f 11 jan 2006 (After Noon). You are requested to release gratuity and other related dues to me at earliest. Name: Yours faithfully, Date: 11 Jan. 2006. Sd/- Copy to: Officer Incharge, HQ NHPC-SEWA HE Project Stage-II Mashka (J&K)." 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the light of the documents placed by the parties on records. 12. Although petitioner-security agency had referred to Corporations inviting tenders from sponsored agencies for providing security services to Sewa Hydroelectric Project Stage-II, yet a significant silence was maintained by it in its petition about its having quoted its rates, participated in the tendering process and even attended the meeting when the tenders had been opened. It had further omitted to mention about the award of contract for providing 35 security personnel including two supervisors to M/s. Sting Security and Secret Services, which in terms of Annexure R. 30 forming part of the objections filed by NHPC Limited had been issued on December 17, 2005. The writ petition does not even mention about petitioners having informed its security staff and others that its contract had come to an end with effect from January 11, 2006 and that they should collect their duties from it under rules. New Security Agency, which had been allotted work of providing security services at Sewa Hydroelectric Project Stage-II of the Corporation, too was not impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition. 13. In view of the above factual background, it is thus apparent that the petitioner had not placed all the facts which were within its knowledge, in the petition at the time it had approached this Court and had thus come to the Court to seek adjudication of questions which may be purely of academic nature. 14. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir for issuance of prerogative writs may be invoked by only those who seek protection of their fundamental, legal or other enforceable rights for securing justice and not only for seeking adjudication on questions which may be only of academic nature. 15. That apart, the disputes raised by the petitioner in this petition are purely contractual and may not be gone into while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 16. 15. That apart, the disputes raised by the petitioner in this petition are purely contractual and may not be gone into while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 16. Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in petitioners learned senior counsels submission that the Corporation was under an obligation to extend the contract in favour of the petitioner for another two years in terms of clause 22 of the Contract agreement. This clause, for its proper understanding is reproduced hereunder: - "22.Upon satisfactory performance by the party of the agreement the Project office will have the option to extend this agreement by two years on the same terms and conditions." 17. A plain reading of this clause indicates that whereas it creates privilege in the Corporation to consider extension of the agreement by any time it so chooses but not more than two years; it does not, on the other hand, create any right still less, an enforceable right, as such, in the petitioner to seek extension for another two years. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that satisfactory performance of contract by the petitioner vests an enforceable right, in it, to seek, as of right, the extension in the contract for another two years, does not appear to me to be sound in law when considered in the background of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1977 (1920 A.D) which may not permit forcing ones personal services on the other contracting party and seeking adjudication thereof under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court. 18. The facts of the present case, demonstrate that the privilege exercised by the Corporation in extending only one years period in the existing contract had been accepted by the petitioner without any demur, and in that view of the matter, its contract would end on January 11, 2006, which position, the petitioner had in unequivocal terms, accepted by its acts of omission and commission including of informing its security personnel to treat their services to have been dispensed with in view of the termination of its contract, thereby leaving no other option with it except to remain satisfied with the extension of only one year in period of its contract with the respondents. 19. This petition, therefore, lacks substance and is, accordingly, dismissed.