M/S. Sai Security Services VsState Of Telangana

1 . W.P.NO.15150 OF 2021: This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondent No.5 to cancel the proceedings vide its

Rc.No.657/plg/TIMS/IHMS/2021, dated 03.07.2021, which was addressed to the petitioner agency by cancellation of allotment in respect of IHFMS

services at respondent No.5 Hospital and entrusted to hand over the charge and administration material to respondent No.6.

2 . W.P.NO.15844 OF 2021: This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondent No.4 to cancel the proceedings vide its

Rc.No.A1/IHMS/340/2021, dated 17.05.2021, which was addressed to the respondent No.5 by cancellation of allotment in respect of IHFMS services

at respondent No.5 Hospital and entrusted to hand over the charge and administration material to respondent No.6.

It is the case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions that the petitioner agency was established in the year 1997 by its proprietor by name

D.Swamy Reddy to provide manual guarding, detective services, training, house keeping, out sourcing of man power, management and construction

services to the Governmental authorities and also providing integrated hospital facility management services in Telangana State.

It is further stated that respondent No.3 issued notification dated 03.03.2017 for work contract of sanitation and pest control services, security

services and patient care services for three years in entire Ranga Reddy District with a minimum experience of three years for participating in the

tender. The petitioner participated in the tender and became successful bidder and entered into contract on 01.08.2017 with respondent No.3 and that

the contract period is three years with effect from 01.08.2017 to 31.07.2020. After establishment of respondent No.5 hospital, respondent No.3

through its letter dated 20.06.2020 provided certain services of integrated hospital facility, management services including out sourcing services and

diet services on emergency basis to respondent No.5 hospital.

The respondent No.3 also issued proceedings No.286/E/DHQH/RR/TIMS/2020, dated 04.07.2020 by allotting the integrated hospital facility

management services to the petitioner agency at the respondent No.5 hospital and basing on the said proceedings, respondent No.5 hospital entered

into a contract agreement with the petitioner agency for a period of one year with effect from 04.07.2020 to 03.07.2021 and that respondent No.4 has

given undertaking to extend the agreement for further three years as per the norms of tender notification dated 03.03.2017.

It is further stated that the petitioner addressed a letter dated 09.06.2021 to the 5th respondent for extension of earlier contract agreement dated

04.07.2020. In turn respondent No.5 addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent seeking permission for extension of contract period of the petitioner

agency. In response to the said letter, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 02.07.2021 extending the period of contract up to 30.09.2021 or

finalization of tenders whichever is earlier. The 5th respondent suppressed the said proceedings and issued separate proceedings dated 03.07.2021 by

cancelling the allotment made to the petitioner agency and entrusted the same to respondent No.6 and instructed the petitioner to hand over the charge

and the material provided by the administration to respondent No.6. Hence the writ petition.

The respondent No.5 filed his counter affidavit, denying the allegations in the writ petition. The tender was called for on 03.03.2017 for work

contracts of sanitation and pest control services, security services and patient care services for a period of three years in the entire Ranga Reddy

District. However, Telangana Institute of medical Sciences and Research (TIMS) was established in July, 2020 during the pandemic time and is under

the control of Director of Medical Education and it is not a TVV Hospital. The contract was awarded to the petitioner at TIMS on 04.07.2020 on

nomination basis and not on any tender basis as TIMS was established during the pandemic time. The petitioner agency was allotted to provide

IHFMS services at TIMS for a period of one year with effect from 04.07.2020 to 03.07.2021 by the Superintendent, District Head Quarters Hospital,

Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings dated 04.07.2020 as approved by the Chairman, District Health Society, Ranga Reddy District Collector since

it was the pandemic time. As per Clause 1.1 of the contract agreement dated 01.08.2017, IHFMS., includes various facilities like sanitation services,

pest control services, security services and patient care services in Area Hospital and community health centers at Ranga Reddy District in the State

of Telangana. However, regarding TIMS hospital, it does not come under the administrative control of TVVP and is not an Area Hospital or a

Community Health Center and it is an exclusive COVID hospital, which came into effect from 04.07.2020 and is under the administrative control of

Medical Education, Telangana State. Due to pandemic, in emergency, the IHFMS services were allotted for a period of one year only with effect

from 04.07.2020 to 03.07.2024 and hence the agreement with the petitioner was executed by respondent No.5 for the said period only. The tender

notification dated 03.03.2017 and in continuation of the contract agreement dated 01.08.2017 is not related to TIMS, Gachbowli as the hospital was

newly established only in July, 2020. The respondent No.3 on 02.07.2021 while communicating the Government Memo dated 19.05.2021 has informed

the respondent No.5 that the IHFMS services with the existing agencies has been extended up to 30.09.2021 or finalization of tenders whichever is

earlier. The respondent No.4 has issued proceedings dated 17.05.2021 withdrawing the services of the petitioner after completion of the contract

period from 03.07.2021 and entrusted to 6th respondent for the period of three years from 04.07.2021 to 30.07.2024. The writ petition is not

maintainable and therefore prayed to dismiss the same.

The respondent No.6 filed his counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. The 4th respondent in his proceedings dated 17.05.2021

had categorically mentioned that the contract period of the petitioner had come to an end on 03.07.2021 and that the work services which were

rendered by the petitioner in TIMS was not satisfactory more so when the State was facing the pandemic situation and there was need of emergency

services to be rendered under the provisions of Disaster Management Act, 2005. It is specifically mentioned in the contract that the tenure of contract

will be for a period of one year from 04.07.2020 to 03.07.2021. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In terms of the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 17.05.2021 and also the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 03.07.2021, the 6th

respondent had reported to work and started rendering services from 04.07.2021. Therefore, nothing survives in the writ petitioner to be adjudicated

by this Court and the writ petition has to be dismissed.

Heard both sides.

It is the case of the petitioner that during his service period, he rendered services without any lacuna and his service evaluation reports indicate

that he was up to the mark and he was given around 97% grading for his services. There was no complaint from any corner against his services. The

respondents extended the term of the petitioner beyond the service period and further assured that his case would be considered for extension, but

surprisingly, contract has been awarded in favour of respondent No.6. The Collector is only a supervising authority and he cannot influence upon

terminating the services and allotment of services in favour of respondent No.6.

It is the case of the official respondents that the contract of the petitioner came to an end by afflux of time and thereafter, continuance of the

petitioner was only on some arrangement basis by way of nomination and the respondents have taken a decision for making permanent arrangement

and entered into contract with un-official respondent No.6 and handed over the hospital to respondent No.6 and from 04.07.2021, respondent No.6 is

rendering services and the petitioner is no where in the scenario.

Admittedly, the contract is for a specified period and by afflux of time, it came to an end. The contention of the petitioner that he was rendering

services to the expectation and was graded 97% do not place him under the cadre for automatic renewal or extension for future period i.e., beyond his

contract period. The petitioner is expected to render 100% service and if he is graded around 97%, it is appreciated to the extent that he has provided

effective service, but it does not create a right upon the petitioner for seeking another extension when the respondents have thought of inviting tenders

and handing over the contract to the successful bidder.

There is no right of extension granted in contracts and this is purely a contractual obligation between the petitioner and respondents and with

regard to deciding the merits and demerits in services, it is not for this Court to go into the gross root level. It is ultimately the official respondents who

have to get satisfied with the services and it is their discretion either to continue or go for fresh contract. In the present case, fresh contract has been

entered only after expiry of the petitioner’s contract period and thus, the petitioner cannot find fault with the action of the respondents.

The District Collector if in his proceedings has recorded that the services of the petitioner were not satisfied, it has to be read in its true letter and

spirit since he is a responsible person and District Magistrate and in-charge of COVID period and when he found that the services are not satisfactory

when the services revolves around the COVID patients and more so the TIMS hospital which is established in 2020 stands on different pedestal and

thus the decision taken by the respondents for allotting the contract in favour of the 6th respondent cannot be find fault with.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are failed and therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.