AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondents No. 3 to 6.
The petitioner, who is retired ex-serviceman from the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, is operating a security agency, which is empanelled with the Directorate General Resettlement (for short, DGR). The petitioner also holds license under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the policy framed by the DGR, the petitioner was awarded a security contract dated 21.05.2021 for a period of two years with extension clause of one year. It is also submitted that the contract period has already been expired and before that he has moved an application dated 10.05.2023 (annexure P/8) before respondents No.1 and 2 for extension of contract as per MTF Clause (i) of (VII), which provides that “The contract shall remain in force for a period of two years, extendable on mutual consent for further one year on same terms and conditions.” It is also submitted that since there is a clause for extension, therefore, the respondents No. 1 and 2 should consider his application for extension of contract.
On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The contract period has already been over, as such, the relief prayed in this petition cannot be considered.
Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have already amended the policy, as such, the petitioner has no right to claim for extension.
From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the original period of contract has already been expired. Respondent No. 1 has to see as to whether extension should be given to the petitioner or not. Petitioner has already submitted a representation before the respondents No. 1 and 2.
In view of the above, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to examine the case of the petitioner for extension of contract awarded to him considering the circulars and regulations framed by the DGR strictly in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.