JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in this writ application challenges selection of respondent No. 3 for providing security and Sanitation Services in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal for a period of one year. 2. In Annexure-A/3 Sealed tenders were invited from reputed, experienced and financially sound registered contractors holding valid licences under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for providing security arrangement and house-keeping (Sanitation) at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS for short), Imphal. The short tender notice inviting sealed tenders was published on 31.10.2013. Clause 8 of the general terms & conditions provides that a Contractor should obtain a valid Licence under the Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 and shall maintain all statutory records as may be required from time to time under the said Act. It is further provided in the said clause that the Contractor shall furnish the said documents for verification by the Employer/Labour authority as and when required. It is also provided that the Contractor shall have a valid Licence before commencement of the work and continue to have the same till completion of the contract. 3. In response to the said tender notice, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 submitted their respective tenders. A committee was constituted to scrutinise the tenders and select one of them for providing security and sanitation services w.e.f. 1.10.2013. In Annexure-A/4 an order was passed on 11.9.2013 to the effect that the respondent No. 3 has been recommended by the Committee and has been engaged for providing security and sanitation services w.e.f. 1.10.2013 at RIMS, Imphal on terms and conditions enumerated in the Deed of Agreement to be entered between the RIMS and the respondent No. 3. This order, under Annexure-A/4, is the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition. 4. Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew attention of the Court to Section 2 of the Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 and submitted that the definition of Contractor in the said Act is in relation to establishment, means a person who undertakers to produce a good result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of the manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. Referring to Sections 12 and 13 of the Act it was contended by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner that every application u/S. 13 of the Act for grant of a licence under sub-section (12) shall be made in the prescribed form and shall contain the particulars regarding location of the establishment, the nature of process, operation of the work for which contract labour is to be employed and such other particulars as may be prescribed. The licensing Officer may make such investigation in respect of the applications received and a licence granted under Chapter IV shall be valid for the period specified therein and may be renewed from time to time. 5. Referring to the above provision of the Act, it was contended by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the registered office of the respondent No. 3 is in New Delhi and therefore the said respondent No. 3 was required to obtain a licence from the licensing authority in the State of Manipur in respect of such contract before submission of tender. The respondent No. 3, having not obtained any such licence from the licensing authority in respect of State of Manipur, its tender could not have been considered by the Committee constituted for selection of a tenderer. Mr. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 3, as per the terms and conditions of the tender paper, was not eligible to submit its tender. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. L. Sashibhushion, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submitted that there was total transparency in selection of tenderers and the respondent No. 3, being the lowest tenderer, was rightly selected by the committee. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, referring to the counter-affidavit filed in the case, further submitted that the licence under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 is to be applied for and obtained only after the particular work is awarded or obtain by the registered contractor and not prior to it at any point of time or while applying for the same on the basis of such application. It appears to be the case of the respondent No. 3, that only after the contract is awarded, licence can be obtained from the competent authority to execute the work. It appears to be the case of the respondent No. 3, that only after the contract is awarded, licence can be obtained from the competent authority to execute the work. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, it is found from the Annexure-A/3 (short tender notice) that sealed tenders were invited from reputed, experienced and financially sound registered Contractors holding licence under the Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 for providing security arrangement and housekeeping (sanitation). 7. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, the licence granted in favour of the respondent No. 3 by the Licensing officer, Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is attached. This is the licence granted on 19.3.2012 only for providing security services. There is nothing in the said licence to show that registered contractor (Respondent No. 3) was also given licence for providing contract labour for housekeeping (sanitation). The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also could not produce any other licence submitted by the respondent No. 3 granting permission to provide contract labour for sanitation. Since the tender call notice provides that tenderers were required to provide for security arrangement and housekeeping (sanitation), such licence for providing security service as well as sanitation should have been produced along with the tender. Admittedly, the respondent No. 3 produced a licence under which he could only provide security services. On this ground alone, the impugned order selecting the respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside as the respondent No. 3 was not competent to submit its tender without a licence for both the purposes. 8. Though it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 that only after obtaining the work order, application is to be submitted for grant of licence to the Licensing authority, there is nothing on record to show that after obtaining the work order, the respondent No. 3 has either applied for grant of licence or has produced the same. From Annexure-A/5, it appears that the Governor of Manipur has appointed Labour Officer, Manipur as the Licensing Officer for the purpose of Chapter (IV) of the said Act on 12.1.1977. No licence from the said Licensing authority has been obtained by the respondent No. 3 even after the work was awarded in its favour. From Annexure-A/5, it appears that the Governor of Manipur has appointed Labour Officer, Manipur as the Licensing Officer for the purpose of Chapter (IV) of the said Act on 12.1.1977. No licence from the said Licensing authority has been obtained by the respondent No. 3 even after the work was awarded in its favour. The only licence produced by the respondent No. 3 before the Court is the one dated 19.3.2012 issued by the Licensing Officer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, that too, only for providing security services. 9. In view of the above two grounds, the impugned order in Annexure-A/4 is not sustainable. I, accordingly, allow this writ application, set aside the impugned order in Annexure-A/4 dated 11.9.2013 awarding contract in favour of the respondent No. 3. It is, further, directed that since tender relates to providing security and sanitation to a hospital, it will be appropriate on the part of the respondent No. 2 to engage some agency on temporary basis to provide security and sanitation services to the hospital till fresh tenders are invited and contract is awarded. Petition allowed. ____________