LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1365

BEST SECURITY SERVICES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 06, 2022
Best Security Services Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs :

(2.) Petitioner came to be issued work orders by second respondent for outsourcing of conservancy staff for sweeping, cleaning, lifting and disposal of garbage at Military Station, Jamnagar, for the period from 1/10/2019 to 31/3/2020. Pursuant to the same, fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) for Rs.4,01,087.00=00, Rs.1,75,747.00.00=00, Rs.1,75,747.00.00=00 and Rs.58,585.00=00 were submitted by petitioner. On completion of the work entrusted, said FDRs were required to be returned by the respondent. Despite bills having been cleared and demand having been made for refund of said FDRs, same was not released. Hence, petitioner got issued a legal notice on 8 th January 2021 (Annexure-C), and on receipt of the same, second respondent, vide communication dtd. 8/1/2021, issued 'No Objection' Certificate qua release of the security deposit receipts tendered by the petitioner. In fact, second respondent has issued a satisfactory 'C' certificate to the petitioner certifying thereunder that work done by the petitioner was satisfactory. Pursuant to the satisfactory report as well as 'No Objection' Certificate qua release of the security deposit having been issued by the second respondent, petitioners submitted a 'No Demand' Certificate to the second respondent for release of the FDRs. In fact, second respondent, on 25/1/2021, has forwarded a communication to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA) for issuing cheques in favour of petitioner to refund the security deposit. Despite the same, FDRs were not released nor the cheques were issued. Hence, petitioner got issued one more legal notice on 1/6/2021 (Annexure-H) which has since been received by respondent, for which no reply was submitted by the respondents. Hence, this petition has been filed for the reliefs above noted.

(3.) We have heard the arguments of Shri Jenil M.Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Shri Parth Divyeshwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.