%.WJ =
EN '"1'}"££:i Hi{,}H CUUMI' OF }<;ARNA*1'A£iA AT BAN GALORE.
i§)A'Tii3D THIS THE} 26"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2i=!€__3&§
'THE: I~£ON'BL}:3 M§~2.JUS"i'1CE RAVI 1v§Ai;4'i.:£Vd£&'i'i{:'\'
WRIT PL¥:}'i'1'i'£{)§{*3 No.15'? (; '»i'+"'"';;éi{}1}$'§LB%}f3;€§fiL.;i;jV:
Bi*3"i"WEE§N: J A T T T %
i\r'i;"$. Tiger Security Service,
At Sri Sanjay Towe-rs,
540.216, Shop E*~£0.GE3 &
Subbamma Shctty Read, _
Basavailagudi, A
BaI:fgaiore~56G {'}G4. _ j V
Represented by ijt;s';E3_fr'::.+p1'i§.*-,=_:*1:__z' _
ShI'i.PI'8.bhEikaIf.. 5j' ~ 3
. . . . PE;"1"l'i'iON1i}R
&(B§r-31%;'; ;sz1%;:',§,.{%;:gi;';%;é.V1»<;1;-:*r1~;;., AL'JV()(;:A'l'11.'.j
._ 'ABa;ij1gajore Mahanagara Paljke,
' Sqfiare', £'la1f;:ga}Gi'6---368 O02,
Refprcsentfi-:1 its Commissicrner.
2, Eixefiutiizg Ezftxgineer,
'-Prajeci .C<'-:I1'a"a}~I,
»;B'.5...:a/1.9., N.J:{.Square,
'¥3anga1orew56€) 032.
Vigiance Security,
'"4 V No. 151, Defzm-:36 %}ony,
V V 4&1 )3/l'ain inciiranagar,
Ba:1ga1ore~38,
Repm-seated by its Manager. ' ». ' ..
. . . ,.-:_}<13::~::§.'{QN:;1;:::s;'I'$
gm' s;<L;<.N.PU'i'w:u0wDA, Ai_,')§.fQ(3A'§'}3§' R4112 " *
sMT.M.c.NAGAsI1;2EE,' nicer? 1='=i'{3f~2 : .
s1-}x~ 9: 21-
Thifi Writ Petitian is 1iieé'%-finaer Am§¢1e sL 226:» Qanc: 22? or
the ijenstimtion of India pray1n'g__m._» quas£1__t_f;§=* order Ciatéd
15.12.2630'? Visit': AI3.1"1eXu:'c;_II issued jfijyf and etc.
This pefitwu coming c_)rL."i'§*19 131xéii£;11fiary hearing in 'B'
Group this day, {20uzf'i:1:;a.d3_-: t.};§~:§% %
'1'he_ ::;§f_;€}§$ for" a...sgs?rif1: of certtorari to quash the
order dai;<=:ci" by the second respondent in
r~za.1:;;e:g:>.c:.;,+w§:,33;1}2z§%:;:?-.03.
“fi’1{3 case of the getitioner that 111 terms 0ft1t1e
by the second respondent, he bid for the same
V aiongkvitri’ Vmious other’ Contractors. 011 considerafion of the
!3i<::is, 't}2e second respondent accepted the bid 01111:: third
1j;¢s5§_rd:1d–ent and awarded the same to him and an ageement
T entered into and 3. work order dated 15. 112.200'? was
'éissuezi. The same is questieneci in this petition.
éL__..
.. 3 ._
3. SI’i.£sd.C.&ayak:rLh1, the learned eeuzasei appearing ibr
the petitiener submitted {E19}: the respendents have vielated the
law while awarciing the tender in favour of the third respon.e_1_e:m:..
He specificafiy pieacie that II11I1’m1u1z1 wages not being g1vei1._i:a.7
the empieyees of the thlrd reepencient, thereiere, ~
the tender ef the third respofident. is eppeseciAte’_if’ie” K V’
Wages Act. He also refers to the e1igi;L*111tj§T “erifer§é…’.at V
provided by the respondents to e0Ii’E;–e1:éd_%t.E’xa’t p1’eIei*eIiee””wei1id
be given to agencies with ISO eeruIieati*0§i_’.’-‘fize thifd ‘i7€3Sj_§;OI1(l€I}t
does not possess :heVeer1itfiie2;_t.e_and aeeemmgly the award
ef contract to eppaeeéi’ fiery e1ig1i::i,ii’ty criteria of the
resperzdelxtsej’ ”
.A the learned counsel appearmg for
Ii”-ifne respeh€ie11t?7L;fe”:*p0;9éii3en submitted the: so far as the grant
efkeaeagee’ {G the eznpieyees of the third respemiezat is
cen.eef1:ed,’T’§£;e eame is in accordance wlth iaw. He refers te the
V. ;~;ite.:eIfieIii§ ofebjeetiexzs te contend that there is me vielation of
‘V of the Minimum Wages Act and there are sut”f1c:1eI1i:
. QJLW
cioeumentatien to eseabiish the same. He timber sue11;.i.1;e~.§het if
ail other requirements are ftliiiiied, the
accepted even though the Company View net “iS_{)’V”ee1f:1I1ed
institution since it is emy a question’-.Qf’ ;g3’1eierenee_”‘e3id”e-116$]ia
question ofI;:1anda’£:e.
5. I have heard the ieeirned the efieiivfiozler and
the respondents.
6. lI’respeet11;e4_’ by the ieamed
eounsei for t_£’:.e..,.t§€éfii§::§d1i&§;r, herein is that the
period of cenixfaet’ ene year. The contract would
expire 0:1 14. ever; 11′ the eemeritiens of the
leerzized fer ipetitioner is accepted, no positive order
conic! “be V ‘;:as:_~:ed~ i:1.fiis_ Iavour.
‘?. ‘1″‘.he §_1:1p1i’g11eCE order herein is 3 W€)}I’K order issued to
‘ respezident. Interference of the said were order by this
.§.§0£i:t’e:e1:;i::ié be 015110 avail t0 the petitioner until and uniess the
. agfeemefit exeeuteé between the third respondent and the
‘~V.V%L”‘{:eji*1:$o1*a{ieI1 is urlder ehaiienge. The question 01’ considering the
JL”-F
_ 5 ..
validity of the work order which 15 in pursuance to the
ageemem, does not can to any raasoxaa. “me: question ofgfr-_a_11t:i11g
minimum Wages or not has been answered by the
in their statemem of ebjectiozzs to contend t:hat.__”t;i1;eTréL’ EST»
vielation at ali, thereibre, to put thy:1;o..’te;:=,1:_;”tE::is”£§o{1rt 9
would have: ta go 1:11:43 the merits Q1′ nt£é’:§1:1r§:{13.V
of bath the partiezs on this ciisputeti, :€1’134es¥:io1*2._£_)’i*»:%::t§’ ‘}ffié same
is uncalled far in a writ petiiian w«h’§§:{ré: -:ri;s’ p{11:ed qiiesiien of fact
fleed not be gone into, The Iea1*-fiV¢2v’Iif1at the Corporation has %
viciated ali the”¢o11«:iiii%§11.s=1§iT’T..:§iafgafd1ng the t:em:ie1′. $11106: this
Court has d<:clj.}i1€:€i'v¥io the merits er omerwxse 0:" the
-::{:_Tt,41é;£:=,711t;i(::§15¢A.~’. raised in i}i€::*–.r<)f' the iikely expixy of the contract, it
wotiid' s!1;'t2.at every action of the Llerporation wauld
'-Ji1a.ve tfii dQI;éD'iirx:; accordance wi§11 the yroceciure envzsageci
'c,Qntern;3;a:ed under law and cannoi: be vioiated under any
4 §§i1*c1I:.*-'i13.1;1a"1fl3';r:t2s. The itorporation therefbre being gevemfid by
. flaws inciuding the Mimrnum Wages Act, wauid have to
oék…
stirictly compiy Wlffl the same. £«’a1i:.1re to conzply W131 V_t_?:1«é~ ._sa3:ne,
wzmid there-ibre :”1e{:essar1i3: amact mteflérenoe t;r§é?__ ticiié
With these observations, the u.i:’§i ‘f)€J’?Z}iiii’}I*};”?3{%;i.1″1;V;’.VvtVii’f§$’V§fV()1V'{Z’i oi’T___
merits is accordingly regecied.