Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 208 (DEL)

Gaurav Enterprises v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

2011-02-08

S.MURALIDHAR

body2011
ORDER S. Muralidhar, J. CM APPL No. 1730/2011 1. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The rejoinder is taken on record. 2. The application is disposed of. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12135/2009 and CM APPL Nos. 12324/2009 685/2011, 1729/ 2011 3. The challenge in this petition is to order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by the Transport Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'), Respondent No. 1 cancelling with immediate effect the award of tender to the Petitioner M/s. Gaurav Enterprises for violating terms and conditions for providing security services at the three Inter State Bus Terminals ('ISB Ts'). 4. The work of providing security services at three ISB Ts was awarded to the Petitioner pursuant to tenders being invited by the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 wrote to the Petitioner on 20th March 2009 asking it to submit a copy of the income tax return or service tax return wherein income generated or the turnover of more than Rs. 35 lakhs for the last three years would be reflected. After the reply dated 30th March 2009 of the Petitioner was not found satisfactory, it was again requested by letters dated 24th April 2009 to furnish the necessary information. The Petitioner's reply dated 1st May 2009 was also found to be unsatisfactory and a show cause notice for cancellation of the award of tender was issued to the Petitioner on 12th June 2009. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed cancelling the contract. 5. On 7th October 2009 the following order was passed by this Court: In spite of second call there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the notice inviting tender and requirement mentioned in Clause 4.L and states that proof of satisfactory performance issued by the government organization/public undertaking that the contractor has undertaken similar nature of work for a minimum amount of Rs. 35 lakhs during the last three years was required to be furnished. He has drawn my attention to the certificates at page Nos. 18 to 21 of the paper book. Counsel for the Petitioner has further drawn my attention to the income tax returns of the Petitioner, which have been enclosed at page Nos. 62A to 620. 35 lakhs during the last three years was required to be furnished. He has drawn my attention to the certificates at page Nos. 18 to 21 of the paper book. Counsel for the Petitioner has further drawn my attention to the income tax returns of the Petitioner, which have been enclosed at page Nos. 62A to 620. He submits that the impugned order dated 1st October, 2009, is factually incorrect, besides being contrary to the terms of Clause 4L. Issue notice to show cause returnable on 10th February 2010. Till the next date of hearing, there will be stay of the impugned order dated 1st October, 2009. Order to the Counsel for the Petitioner. 6. The said interim order thereafter continued as a result of which the Petitioner continued providing security services for the entire period of the contract which came to an end on 31st December 2010 i.e. after the expiry of 24 months as mentioned in the original contract. 7. The Respondent No. 1 on 12th November 2011 filed CM No. 685 of 2011 for modification of the stay order pointing out that the Petitioner was not entitled to continue after the period of the original contract expired. The Petitioner filed an application CM No. 1729 of 2011 on 3rd February 2011 for a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to allow the Petitioner to continue till such time a new contract was entered into and also to make payments of the outstanding amounts due to the Petitioner. 8. The writ petition as well as two applications have been finally heard. This Court has considered the submissions of Mr. K.K. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. N. Waziri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 9. Mr. Rai was unable to show the legal basis on which the Petitioner could seek to continue beyond the period of the original contract. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the Petitioner has continued till the completion of the period of contract i.e. 24 months. The Petitioner cannot possibly seek the relief of continuing to provide security services beyond the period of contract. 10. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the Petitioner has continued till the completion of the period of contract i.e. 24 months. The Petitioner cannot possibly seek the relief of continuing to provide security services beyond the period of contract. 10. In the considered view of this Court, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, and that the Petitioner having completed the entire period of contract by providing security services, no further relief can possibly be granted to the Petitioner. The writ petition has become infructuous. 11. Mr. Rai then submitted that the impugned cancellation order would nevertheless have to be set aside by this Court. With the contract itself having come to an end, and with there being no vested right in the Petitioner to have the contract renewed beyond the original period of contract, there is no need for this Court to adjudicate the validity of the impugned order, which in any event has not been allowed to operate. 12. Any claim that the Petitioner may have against the Respondent as regards the outstanding bills, can be agitated in other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 13. The petition and the pending applications are disposed of.