M/S Reven -Air Security Agency vs Union Of India on 14 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25726 of 2008(K)


1. M/S REVEN -AIR SECURITY AGENCY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :14/01/2009

 O R D E R
                                 S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                       ==================

                          W.P(C).No.25726 of 2008

                       ==================

                Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009

                                 J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed by a security agency. They were

originally engaged by the 2nd respondent for rendering security

services, in accordance with the notifications issued by the

Government of India in respect of security agencies comprised of the

ex-servicemen. After the initial period of two years of contract with the

petitioner was over, the 2nd respondent invited fresh tenders in which

the 3rd respondent was selected. The petitioner has filed this writ

petition challenging the award of the security work to the 3rd

respondent on the ground that as per the orders of the Government of

India every security agency who is engaged as per the orders of the

Government of India is entitled to one extension of the contract by

another term of two years. It is under the above circumstances the

petitioner as filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) To declare that the petitioner is entitled for extension of the
work allotment referred to in Exts.P12 for a further period of 2 years after
the expiry of the initial 2 year work allotment period.

(b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction, directing the respondents not to allot the work of
security service coverage in the work sites of the 2nd respondent in the
Cochin Terminal, Irumpanam allotted to the Petitioner in pursuance of
Ext.P12 to any person or agency other than the Petitioner, for another 2

w.p.c.25726/08 2

year period from 1.9.2008.

(c) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction, directing the respondents to allot to the Petitioner the
aforementioned work of security coverage in the work site of the 2nd
respondent allotted to the Petitioner in pursuance of Ext.P12 for further
2 year period from 1.9.2008.”

2. This Court has already held in several writ petitions that

such security agencies are entitled to one extension as per the

Government orders. That being so, the action of the respondents in

engaging the 3rd respondent is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, this

writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to

engage the petitioner for another term also in accordance with the

orders of the 1st respondent on the subject. It would be open to the 3rd

respondent to approach the 2nd respondent for preferable treatment in

the matter of award of contract for the next period on the ground that

they were selected this year and on account of this judgment, they are

being denied the benefit of the agreement executed by them. In such

event, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same sympathetically.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                                  S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE


          ///True copy///




                                 P.A. to Judge

w.p.c.25726/08                     3




                           S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                   ==================

                     W.P.(C).No.25726 of 2008

                   ==================

                Dated this the 29th of August, 2008

                             O R D E R

Admit. Learned Assistant Solicitor General takes notice for the 1st

respondent. Learned standing counsel takes notice for the 2nd

respondent.

w.p.c.25726/08 4

Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the

2nd respondent has only chosen to a security agency from a panel

forwarded by the Director General of Resettlement, in which the

petitioner was not included. He also submits that from the panel the

2nd respondent has chosen one security agency and issued work order

to them even prior to the filing of this writ petition. Whatever that be,

in so far as this Court has upheld the right of similarly placed security

agencies for automatic extension for a further period of two years,

unless 2nd respondent has a case that they were dissatisfied with the

performance of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be declined the

benefit of extension. Therefore, there would be an interim order

directing that the petitioner be continued as a security agency of the

2nd respondent until further orders. The petitioner shall implead the

security agency to whom the work order has been issued by the 2nd

respondent, for which the 2nd respondent shall furnish the address of

the security agency, to the counsel for the petitioner.

sdk+                                            S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
H/O.

w.p.c.25726/08    5