Orissa

Rayagada

CC/99/2014

Sri Kasinath Samal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary, SC & ST Evelopment Dept, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.N.Dash,

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGA

AT:  KASTURI  NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C.OFFICE BACK PO/DIST: RAYAGADA ,  STATE:                                                                                    ODISHA,  PIN  NO.765001,  PHONE/FAX                                                                                                                             NO.06856-223025.

 

                                           C.C. Case  No. 99/ 2014.

                                        Dated.  21^th February, 2015.                              

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                            President.

Smt. Ch.  Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB,                  Member

Kasinath Samal, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Harekrushna Samal, At: Ramkrushna Nagar, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada………….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Secretary, SC & ST Development Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
2. Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                       …….…..Opp.Parties

 

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Sri P.N.Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

For the O.P 1: & 2 : Sri Y.Madhu, Asst. Govt. Pleader, Rayagada.

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

1.                     The facts of the complaint  in brief is  that  the complainant is  a  Civil Contractor  came to know  about  invitation  for BIDS  for construction of over head tank  at different places from the Oriya daily news  paper Prameya dt.19.12.2013 advertised by the O.pa. No.2  on behalf of O.p. No.1 . The complainant having  all eligibility as per the advertisement obtained the BID documents papers in shape of soft copy  as available on production of the CD in the office of the O.p. No.2.  After filling the papers properly the complainant  tendered the same in the office of the O.p. No.2. The complainant after opening the tender found his BID was rejected without opening the same for the reason that the tender being two bid systems was not submitted separately    in two sealed covers where as the technical bid and financial bid paper was submitted by the complainant in separate sealed cover  but in one Regd.Post . Thereafter, the O.p. No.2 did not return the Bid papers wherein a Bank draft of Rs.10,500/-  and tender paper was enclosed and the same has not been returned to the complainant till date.  It is further submitted by the complainant that the rejection of his bid papers without opening the same is with malafide  so as to enable  only the tenderer in whose favour the work was assigned by the O.p. No.1 & 2. From the beginning of the invitation as notified by the O.ps the entire process and exercise of the bid is embedded with ill motive and unfairness . Hence, prayed to stop further proceeding of the work till final disposal of the case and after hearing the case  the entire process of the tender made by the O.ps be declared null and void and  award compensation  as would deem fit and proper.

2.                     On being noticed, the Opp.Party No.1 appeared through Government Pleader, Rayagada   and files written version inter alia denying the petition  allegations on all its material particulars.    It is submitted by the O.ps that the complainant is not a consumer and the subject matter of the dispute does not come under the provisions of the C.P.Act,1986 and the petitioner has no locus-stand to file this petition before the Hon’ble Forum and the Hon’ble Forum should have rejected the petition  under the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner is not a consumer  nor the opposite parties  either traders or service providers within the meaning and ambit as enunciated in the C.p.aAct,1986 and as such the case is not tenable in this forum and liable to be dismissed.

   FINDINGS

3.                     We perused the petition and documents filed by the parties and also heard the argument from the learned counsel for the parties. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is a civil  contractor and he has filed tender papers for participating in the contract of construction of over head water tank with water supply system at different places in the Rayagada Sub Division but it  was rejected without opening the same for the reason that the tender being two bid systems was not submitted separately    in two sealed covers where as the technical bid and financial bid paper was submitted by the complainant in separate sealed cover  but in one Regd.Post  and thereafter, the O.p. No.2 did not return the Bid papers wherein a Bank draft of Rs.10,500/-  and tender paper was enclosed and the same has not been returned to the complainant till date.  It is further submitted by the complainant that the rejection of his bid papers without opening the same is with malafide  so as to enable  only the tenderer in whose favour the work was assigned by the O.p. No.1 & 2. In reply, the O.ps has submitted that the procedure for submitting bid is in two bid system i.e one for technical bid and another for financial bid and the financial bid sealed cover will be opened after technical bid is qualified but the complainant has submitted the technical bid and financial bid in a single salad cover instead of submitting in two separate sealed covers. Since the tender was of two bid system and technical bid was to be opened first, the tender committee has rightly rejected the tender of the complainant and the complainant has admitted his fault before the tender committee and filed no objection during the opening of the tender and submitted an application requesting to return his tender papers.

4.                     After perusal of the records  and documents filed by the parties and hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that  the Opp.parties have acted properly without any fault from their side and they have rightly rejected the tender paper of the complainant as the same was not submitted as per the procedure and due to procedural defect of filing tender papers the tender paper was rejected  and subsequently the contract work was awarded to the successful bidder  in due performance of the tender process. Since the contract work was  awarded to one Promod Manahty  who has already commenced execution of the work  and laid all the required  materials and engaged all his machinery and labour for execution of the said work and as per our exparte interim order the said work was stopped but subsequently after hearing both parties, the forum vacated the interim order vide order dt.20.06.2014. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not found any merit from the side of the complainant. Hence, it is ordered.

   ORDER

                        Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that  the Opp.parties have rightly rejected the tender paper of the complainant  and as such the complaint petition filed by the complainant is dismissed having no merit. However, we directed the Opp.Parties  to return the tender papers of the complainant  along with his Bank draft of Rs.10,500/- which was submitted by the complainant . Accordingly, the complaint petition is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs. Parties to bear their own cost.

                       

            Pronounced in open forum today on this 21^st  day of February, 2015 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

Member                                                                      President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy  of  cutting of daily news paper dt.19.12.13
2. Xerox copy of DTCN of Tender(total set)
3. Loan sanction letter.

 

By the O.Ps.: Nil

 President