H. M. SECURITY AGENCY Vs. DISTRICT COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The respondent issued a notice inviting Tender which was published in the newspaper and also on the website of the respondent No.1. The bids were called for cleaning and hygienic work of the Court rooms, chambers, offices, lobbies, toilets and entire District Court building compound. The writ applicant participated in the said Tender process. The Tender process comprised of two stages. The writ applicant quoted the rate of Rs.446.39 paise for one person for one day, M/s. S. R. Chaudhari and Company, Mahesana quoted the rate of Rs.495.21 paise for one person for one day, D. B. Enterprise, Ahmedabad quoted the rate of Rs.496.73 paise for one person for one day and Famous Enterprise, Mahesana quoted the rate of Rs.496.73 paise for one person for one day. The Committee was constituted to consider the rates which were quoted by the bidders. Considering the lowest rate offered by the writ applicant, the representative of the agency was asked to show the proof regarding experience of cleaning of offices, etc. The representative orally informed the members of the Committee that their agency had no such experience of cleaning work, etc. It was discussed between the members of the Committee that as per the Notification dated 26th December 2014 published under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for unskilled persons, the minimum wages is Rs.276/- and special allowance is Rs.56.60 paise. Therefore, the minimum daily wages comes to Rs.332.50 paise and considering 13% of the P.F. and other allowances, it comes to Rs.414.21 paise and after calculating GST, the amount comes to Rs.488.76 paise. Therefore, it was decided that the agencies who have offered the rate less than The Minimum Wages Act should not be considered and therefore, considering the fact that the rate quoted by the writ applicant in the Tender was less than the minimum wages and it was conceded by the representative of the writ applicant before the members of the Committee that their agency had no experience, it was decided not to consider the case of the writ applicant for contract of cleaning work.

(3.) The aforesaid is revealed from para 9 of the reply which is filed by the respondent - Mahesana District Court duly signed by the Registrar of the Court.