High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Taurus Security Service vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
M/S.Taurus Security Service vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 35046 of 2007(V)


1. M/S.TAURUS SECURITY SERVICE, REP. BY ITS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD (BSNL)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC, BSNL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :20/02/2008

 O R D E R
                              ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                ------------------------------------

                      W.P.(C) 35046 & 35189  of  2007

               -------------------------------------

                          Dated: February 20, 2008



                                    JUDGMENT

In these two writ petitions what is claimed is that the

petitioners should be permitted to continue their arrangement for

providing security guards for another two years in addition to the

initial period of two years. Similar relief prayed for has been

granted by this court and W.P.(C) 37352/07 is one such case.

WP(C) 35046/07

2. When this writ petition came up today for orders, the

standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that on

the strength of an interim order, the petitioners are continuing and

they have already sought for sponsorship of them. It is submitted

that the petitioners will be permitted to continue for two years as

sought for by them. Recording this submission the writ petition is

closed.

W.P.(C) 35189 of 2007

Though the petitioners in this writ petition are continuing on

the strength of an interim order, the standing counsel submits that

WP(C) 35046 & 35189 of 2007

Page numbers

in view of certain complaints regarding the performance of the

petitioners, they have not sought for re-sponsorship. It is

submitted that their performance is unsatisfactory and there is no

proposal to continue their services. If, as a matter of fact, the

service of the petitioners is not satisfactory to the 2nd respondent,

irrespective of the Government Orders enabling them to continue

for four years, petitioners cannot assert any right to continue under

the 2nd respondent.

In the aforesaid circumstances I do not think that this court

will be justified in requiring the respondents to retain them in

service as prayed for by them. In view of the complaints that are

pending against the petitioners, they are not entitled to continue.

The writ petitions are dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mt/-