Chattar Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

The petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation is a senior citizen who has retired after working in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board.

He has filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking inquiry/investigation from an independent agency as regards the work awarded to M/s Kaushal Electrical Shamsherpur Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh (6th respondent) under the award dated 12.03.2018 for replacement of defective/electro­mechanical meters in District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh.

He alleges that the single phase meters have to be installed at the cost of Rs. 70/­ to Rs.100/­ but the Chief Engineer, Operations, South, HPSEB (3rd respondent) by name Sh. S.N. Upreti had awarded the said contract to the 6th respondent for Rs.2360/­ and this rate is abnormal since it is almost 200 times of the existing market rates.

Notice was issued to respondents No. 1 to 5 on 13. 12.2022 and counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 by name Shri Vikrant Thakur was asked to obtain instructions.

The petitioner has placed reliance on Annexures P­1, P­2, P­3 and P4 which are copies of information received by him under the Right to Information Act pertaining to labour rates for installation/replacement of the defective electro­mechanical meters in Districts Sirmour, Kinnaur and Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

Prior to filing of the writ petition, he had lodged a complaint against Shri S.N. Upreti, Chief Engineer Operations of HPSEBL to the Vigilance Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh with regard to above aspect also.

The matter was inquired into by the Superintendent of Police, SV and ACB, Sirmour and he submitted his report to the Additional Director General to the said department on 10.3.2021.

The said report reveals that on 12.07.2017, the office of the Chief Engineer (OP) South Shimla invited online e­tender for design, manufacturing, supplying, erection, testing and commissioning of 11 KV LT Lines with bare conductor/AB cable, providing single phase and three phase electronic meters and augmentation of substations under “Den Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yogna” in District Sirmour; that tenders were extended five times due to non­ receipt of bids and poor response from bidders and finally, the 6th respondent and another party by name M/s Fabrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. Submitted bids; M/s Fabrico India Pvt. Ltd. was not found eligible due to non submission of hard copies of tender documents; and after getting the approval of the Director (OP), HPSEBL, the techno commercial bid of M/s Kaushal Electrical Paonta Sahib was opened on 29.11.2017; the case was also examined by F&A wing of HPSEBL; it was then put up before the MD level SPC and after subsequent negotiation, the 6th respondent offered 8% discount on their quoted rates which was accepted by the MD level SPC and approved to award the work to the said firm on turnkey basis, vide letter dated 12.03.2018.

The said report further states that the inquiry reveals that the tenders were not for replacement of meters only as was alleged by the petitioner but it includes design, manufacturing, supplying, erection, testing and commissioning of 11 KV LT Lines with bare conductor/AB cable, providing single phase and three phase electronic meters and augmentation of substations in District Kinnaur and Sirmour and replacement of meters was one of the items in the tender. The report further states that the inquiry revealed that in the turnkey projects invariably the total cost of the offer is considered for warding the work, not the item­wise rates and that the bidders offered their rates as per sources of material, working site conditions and labour involved etc. as per their prudence.

The report further states that tender was awarded to the 6th respondent only after approval of the MD level SPC and the case was also scrutinized by the F&A wing of the HPSEBL and so the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be substantiated and recommended closure of the complaint.

This report is filed as part of Annexure P­7.

We may point out that tendering process, pursuant to which 6th respondent was awarded the work for designs, manufacturing, supplying, erection, testing and commissioning of 11 KV LT Lines with bare conductor/AB cable, providing single phase and three phase electronic meters and augmentation of substations, on 12.03.2018, was never challenged by any unsuccessful tenderer.

According to the report of the Superintendent of Police State Vigilance and ACB , Himachal Pradesh, referred to supra, the award of the said contract was done after examination of the F&A wing of the HPSEBL and after approval of the MD level SPC. Thus at different levels, up to the MD level, the process of tendering and awarding of work underwent scrutiny and nobody complained of the same at the time of award of the tender.

Also no consumer, who was provided single phase and three face electric meters had complained about the costs of the replacement of the same to any party.

It is not the case of the petitioner that he had availed the said facility and is aggrieved by the costs imposed by the 6th respondent for replacement of the defective defective/electro­mechanical meters with phase three electronic meters.

Also when the award to the 6th respondent had various components of which the replacement of meters was only one in the work and was turnkey projects work as rightly observed by the Superintendent of Police of the State Vigilance and ACB Department that invariably the total costs of the offer is to be considered for awarding the contract and not the item wise rates.

When the affected party who had availed the services of replacement of meters from the 6th respondent has any grievance, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court espousing public interest.

The counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that Sh. S.N. Upreti the then Chief Engineer of HPSEBL who had issued the subject tender at Sirmour had retired, the work was executed by the 6th respondent in 2018 and without any valid cause, the petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation.

We find force in the said contention.

We are also of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material available on record, no interference is called for in the matter as it has become stale.

Therefore, we find no merit in the Public Interest Litigation and it is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.