FAMOUS SECURITY SERVICES Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning unilateral cancellation of tender order no. 3232 dated 28.11.2019 and agreement dated 10.02.2020 by the Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Bargarh-opposite party no.3, vide letter dated 04.08.2020, the petitioner, a partnership firm, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Joint Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, vide letter dated 29.01.2019, directed the Treasury Officers of different districts to fill up vacant posts of peon in their Treasuries/Sub-Treasuries on outsourcing basis by following the provisions contained in Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1978. Accordingly, Deputy Director, Directorate of Treasuries & Inspection Odisha, Bhubaneswar, vide letter no. 11890 dated 23.09.2019, instructed opposite party no.3 to call for tender on the recruitment of outsourced employees, as per Finance Department letter no. 37323/F dated 30.11.2018. Pursuant to such letter dated 23.09.2019, opposite party no.3, by issuing office order no. 3525 dated 28.11.2019, invited sealed quotations from eligible agencies/farms having valid EPF Code, ESI in their name issued by RPFC, Odisha Circle, Service Tax registration Certificate, ESI Registration Certificate and Labour License issued by the competent authority for providing man power for WCS and Peons to work in Bargarh Treasury and Sub-Treasury under Bargarh.

(3.) Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence and contended that cancellation of contract by impugned order dated 04.08.2020 under Annexure-12 cannot sustain in the eye of law, in view of the fact that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner and, thereby, there was noncompliance of principles of natural justice and, as such, no reasons have been assigned in the order impugned. It is further contended that there was no violation of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement on the part of the petitioner, as envisaged under clauses-14, 18 and 19 and, as such, nothing has been referred to in the order of cancellation, thereby, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that the terms and conditions, as enumerated in the agreement dated 10.02.2020, are the basis which governs and guides both the parties to act specifically in a particular manner. Clause-26 of the agreement specifically stipulates that payment has to be made on monthly basis and even though the petitioner submitted its bill since last five months, the same has not been paid and, as such, the authority is sitting tight over the matter. It is further contended that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition due to violation of principles of natural justice as well as fundamental rights of the petitioner, particularly when the action taken by the authority is in gross violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.