IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25726 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S REVEN -AIR SECURITY AGENCY, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, COL (RTD), R.N. RAVI, AYILAT, AMC - V/3, KOTTAMKULANGARA WARD, AVULOOKUNNU P.O., ALLEPPEY - 688 006. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR -GENERAL OF RE-SETTLEMENT GOVT. OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN 682 036. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 3. M/S.CAVALIER DETECTIVE & SECURITY SERVICES, REP. BY MAJOR (RTD) V.RAVINDRAN, THOMPIL BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-10. (ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.12576/2008 DTD.13.10.08) ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 27726/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.4.01. P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 37374/03 OF THIS COURT. P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 31070/06 OF THIS COURT. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2362/07. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 31228/06. P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 37330/07. P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 37352/07. P8. COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.7.1.08 OF R1. P9. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.1.08. P9A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.4.08. 10. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.31.7.98 IN W.P.(C).No. 23104/08. P11. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.9.06. P12. COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD.14.8.06 BY R2. P13. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.6.08 BY R2. P14. COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).No. 13542/08. P15. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 13542/08. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD.18.3.96 B. COPY OF THE NORMS OF SPONSORSHIP. C. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.6.08. D. COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD.21.8.08. E. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.1.9.08. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 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