Full Text
JUDGMENT
PINK HOUSING KEEPING ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Shaad Anwar with Ms Shabnam.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr J.C.Seth with Mr Udit Sethi.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr Balapara Maheshwari K.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
1. The petitioner, M/s Pink House Keeping, a contractor of manpower supply, housekeeping, sanitation, horticulture etc, had participated in the tender issued by Centre for Development of Telematics (hereinafter referred to as 'C-DOT' or respondent no.1), a registered scientific society set up by Government of India to carry out research and development works in the field of telecommunication, for biennial contract for house keeping and pest control services at C-DOT campus in Mehrauli, but was 2016:DHC:7164-DB not successful as it was adjudged L-2 whereas the contract was awarded to respondent No.2 namely M/s Top Servers, another participant in the tender.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in the financial bid tabled by the respondent No.2, "bonus" in accordance with Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and Rules was not included and therefore the bid of respondent no.2 was not responsive and if at all, the statutory bonus would have been included in the financial bid of respondent no.2, only the petitioner and not respondent No.2 would have been adjudged L-1 and would have been successful in bagging the contract.
3. The respondent No.1 (C-DOT), had invited tenders on 11.03.2016 for housekeeping and pest control services at its office complex situated at Mandi House Mehrauli, New Delhi. A pre-bid meeting was held on 22.03.2016, wherein the issue of payment of bonus was clarified and the participants were made to understand that bonus as per law was required to be included in the price bids.
4. The technical bids of the participants were opened on 07.04.2016 wherein the petitioner and the respondent No.2 along with certain others qualified whereafter their financial bids were opened on the same day. The financial bid of the petitioner was evaluated and adjudged as L-2 whereas the respondent no.2 was adjudged as L-1.
5. The respondent No.2, though, had indicated about payment of bonus in its technical bid, but the amount of bonus was not shown in the financial bid. The respondent No.1, therefore, sought clarification from respondent no.2 regarding payment of bonus. Respondent no.2 communicated vide letter dated 15.07.2016 that the rates quoted in the financial bid was inclusive of all expenses including bonus and that no extra cost would be charged from respondent No.1. The aforesaid clarification seems to have satisfied respondent No.1 and thereupon, the contract was awarded to respondent No.2 on 16.08.2016.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the financial bid of the respondent No.2, in the first instance, was non-responsive and secondly, if bonus would have been added in the financial bid by respondent no.2, only the petitioner and not respondent No.2 would have been adjudged the lowest bidder. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the calculation put forth by the respondent in as much as the calculation has been made on the basis of 2.5% service charges quoted by the petitioner over the entire salary, inclusive of statutory payments whereas the petitioner had made it clear in its commercial bid that the service charges would be on wages simplicitor.
7. In response to the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, a comparative chart of the financial bids of the two bidders namely the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was furnished by respondent No.1 which is as follows:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. Manpower/Consumable No. Top Server Pink │ │ Detail Housekeeping │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Housekeeping Manager 1 16236.25 14924.01 │ │ 2. Housekeeping 2 26347.96 27514.16 │ │ Supervisor (2) │ │ 3. Housekeeping 50 542006.50 631500.00 │ │ Men/ladies unskilled │ │ 4. Plumber 1 13173.98 l3757.08 │ │ 5. Carpenter 1 13173.98 13757.08 │ │ 6. Manpower Total- 610938.67 641113.83 │ │ I(without service │ │ charges) │ │ 7. Rate of Service 1.25 2.50 │ │ Charges(%) │ │ Service Charges 7636.73 16027.85 │ │ Manpower cost 618575.40 657141.68 │ │ inclusive of service │ │ charges) p.m │ │ Sub-Total A (inclusive 7422904.84 7885700.11 │ │ of service charges) │ │ P.A. │ │ 8. Rodent Control 26 23400.00 7800.00 │ │ Services │ │ 9. Disinfectation Services 52 15600.00 14400.00 │ │ Campus │ │ 10. Fumigating Canteen 12 12000.00 3600.00 │ │ Stores │ │ 11. Eradication of Bats 1 700.00 100.00 │ │ W.P.(C) No.7681/2016 Page 4 of 9 │ │ 2016:DHC:7164-DB │ │ 12. Catching of Snakes 1 500.00 500.00 │ │ 13. Beehive Removal 1 500.00 500.00 │ │ Sub Total B (per 52700.00 26900.00 │ │ annum cost) │ │ 14. Consumable (Sub- 12 842052.00 800880.00 │ │ Total C) per annum │ │ cost incl. of taxes │ │ Gross Total (A+B+C) 8317656.84 8713480.11 │ │ Note: │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
15. Thus finding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the decision making process and the consequent final allotment of contract to respondent No.2, we do not wish to entertain the present petition any further.
16. The writ petition is dismissed without costs. CM 31647/2016
1. In view of the petition having been dismissed, the application has become infructuous.
2. The application is disposed of accordingly.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J OCTOBER 25, 2016 k