Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Anish Dayal, Delhi High Court
Mere Use Of ‘Caretaker’ Phrase Doesn’t Dilute Core Nature Of Service Of Unarmed Security Guard: Delhi High Court Allows Plea Against Culture Ministry
|The Delhi High Court said that the disqualification of the Petitioner-CISS Services Ltd. is perverse, arbitrary, and irrational.
The Delhi High Court held that for tendered work, mere use of the ‘caretaker’ phrase does not dilute, in any manner, the core nature of service i.e., of an unarmed security guard.
The Court allowed Writ Petitions seeking quashing of the operation and issuance of work orders to SIS Limited in respect of the tenders issued by the Ministry of Culture, Union of India.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal observed, “The service and skills required for tendered work is of an unarmed security guard who is trained for the purpose of providing services as delineated above. … In the opinion of this Court, any reasonable and prudent person would consider that these are “similar services” and cannot be vastly distinguished merely on the basis of nomenclature. The SBI contract would have, for the purposes of their own internal systems, defined these services as “caretaker services”. Mere use of the ‘caretaker’ phrase does not dilute, in any manner, the core nature of service i.e. of an unarmed security guard.”
The Bench said that the disqualification of the Petitioner-CISS Services Ltd. is perverse, arbitrary, and irrational.
Senior Advocate Ashish Mohan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Vikram Jetly appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondent-Ministry of Culture issued tenders in July 2024, requisitioning service of unarmed security guards for protected monuments located in the Southern and Central regions of India; more specifically, requirement of 925 and 381 unarmed security guards, respectively. The said tender process was initiated on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) platform. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was the beneficiary of the subject tender. The Petitioner company was engaged in the business of providing comprehensive end-to-end outsourced solutions and services for sectors where security and safety risks are considered a strategic threat. It claimed to have a pan-India presence and provided services to institutions, banks, and various government undertakings.
The Petitioner submitted its bid in August 2024 and there were 76 bidders on the portal. In December 2024, technical bids were opened and 75 bidders including the Petitioner were disqualified. The only bidder remaining was awarded the contract. On the GeM portal, the reason cited for Petitioner’s disqualification was “does not full fill the parameter namely required experience hence disqualified”. Petitioner submitted a representation urging ASI to reconsider the disqualification and a response was received stating “on evaluation of all documents, not found eligible”. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The fact that petitioner was a license holder under PSARA also makes it obvious that they were in the business of providing security guard services and were not just a fly-by-night operator. … Having passed muster on both turnover and PSARA registration, being deleted on the basis of the proposed ‘mismatch’ in experience contract with SBI using the word “caretaker” cannot be accepted.”
The Court added that any prudent person would simply peel off only one thin layer to appreciate the real purpose of the contract and would have arrived at an undeniable conclusion that the contract was for security services.
“The tendering authority could have been in a better in the position in this situation by expanding the base of the consideration beyond just one person out of 76, in order to get a favourable bid, and could have easily asked for a clarification on this issue from the petitioner”, it remarked.
The Court clarified that it is not foisting any interpretation on the tendering process and what is being assessed is whether the decision-making process of the tendering authority was arbitrary or irrational, unreasonable, and in that, it leans in favour of accepting the plea of Petitioner.
“For the reasons stated above, the tendering authority erred in rejecting the petitioner’s bids by disqualifying it on the basis of stated past experience. The assessment by the tendering authority, for the reasons stated above, is in the opinion of this Court arbitrary and unreasonable, and, therefore, cannot be sustained”, it concluded.
The Court directed the Ministry to initiate the tender process afresh for the work allotted to the qualified bidder forthwith and complete the same within three months.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- CISS Services Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6356-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ashish Mohan, Advocates Arush Bhandari, Shimran Shah, and Santosh Kushwaha.
Respondents: CGSC Vikram Jetly, GP Gokul, SSA Naveen, Advocates Shreya Jetly, Anupam Kishore Sinha, Pradeep K Tiwari, Apoorv Jha, and Sahitya Srivastava.