Public interest is best served when public money is not unnecessarily expended, the High Court said on Wednesday while setting aside a decision of the Delhi government that rejected the bid of a security service provider for quoting a very low agency charge.
Noting that there was no condition regarding agency charges in the notice inviting the tender, a bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Badar Durez Ahmed said: “An authority cannot supplant its views and has to go by the express terms and conditions of the tender document. The authority has to abide by the results of the tender… the authority is subject to restraints”.
In the present case, the Delhi government’s Directorate of Education (DoE) had invited e-tenders from firms that could provide trained security staff at government schools and field offices of the DoE for two years.
Petitioner Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was one of the bidders and had quoted the lowest agency charges of Re.1. The DoE asked for clarifications to ensure feasibility and viability of the petitioner in carrying out the work on such low charges.
‘Hybrid business model’
Despite explaining the “hybrid business model”, which involves redirecting funds received by the firm under various government-sponsored deployment linked skill development programmes for security work, and the fact that the company maintained an elaborate infrastructure in Delhi, its bid was rejected on the ground of non-feasibility of carrying out the tender requirements at the price.
The company challenged the rejection before the High Court while the Delhi government said the court can intervene only if the decision affects public interest.
Safety and security
“As far as public interest in this matter is concerned, it would primarily be referable to the public money, which would be spent for the contract for safety of the persons for whom security is to be provided. Public interest is best served when public money is not unnecessarily expended,” said the court.
“The petitioner submitted its annual statement showing its financial worth and explained the source of funding. There is no reason to doubt that the petitioner will be able to provide security as per the terms,” the court added.
