AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.44/2016/TSR of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur registered for the offences under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC.
The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners, who were the Managing committee members of the bank, granted the contract for construction
of a new building to the contractor Sri.T.G.Sajeev (accused No.22), who had quoted higher rate disregarding the tender of the contractors, who
quoted lesser rates. It is further alleged that the supervision of the work was entrusted with M/s.Lamaesta Builders and Engineers, without inviting
tenders and they were paid excess amount than the agreed amount. The above crime arose out of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before
the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur.
This Crl.M.C. has been filed praying for quashing Annexure-A6 F.I.R. and all further proceedings against the petitioners in the above crime
Heard.
In connection with the construction of the building, a tender was called for. Five persons submitted tender for the contract work. The contract
was allotted to Sri.T. G. Sajeev, who is the 22nd accused, disregarding the lower rates quoted in other tenders, is the main allegation. Statement
has been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur, stating that the quick verification revealed that the Board of Directors
committed criminal mis-conduct in awarding tender to Sri T.G.Sajeev, contractor, who quoted higher rate, disregarding the lowest rate quoted by
Ganga Constructions, for constructing the new building for the bank.
It appears from Annexure-A7 minutes that one Jaison and Beever Builders respectively quoted 30% and 28% above the estimate rate and
hence their tenders were rejected. Ganga Constructions quoted 13% above the estimate rate. However, the enquiry conducted by the sub
committee revealed that Ganga Constructions could not complete the constructions within the stipulated period in many places where the contract
was awarded to them. In some places, they left the place without completing the construction. In the said circumstances, the committee decided
not to give the contract to Ganga Constructions. Ollukkara Area Labour Contract Co-operative Society did not produce any document to prove
their experience, even though sufficient time was granted to them. Therefore, their tender was also rejected by the Committee. Sri T.G. Sajeev,
who is the present contractor, quoted 23% above the estimate rate. He was having sufficient experience in the matter of construction. After
negotiation, the contract work was accepted at 27.9% above the estimate rate including the tax. Thus, it appears from Annexure-A7 that cogent
reasons were stated in the minutes for granting the contract to Sri.T.G.Sajeev. After going through Annexure- A7, the learned Public Prosecutor
has submitted that there was no illegality in the matter of awarding contract to Sri.T.G.Sajeev. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am also of
the view that no illegality could be detected in the matter of awarding contract to Sri T. G. Sajeev, who is the 22nd accused.
It is alleged that M/s.Lamaesta Builders and Engineers was appointed as the supervisor without inviting tenders and they were paid excess
amount than the agreed amount. It is further alleged that no authenticity was seen in the measurements recorded in the M-book. In respect of the
said matters, the investigation is going on. In the said circumstances, I am not expressing any opinion with regard to the said aspects. However,
since there is allegation of corruption in the above said matters, I am not inclined to quash the F.I.R. and further proceedings against the petitioners
at this stage. However, the Investigating Officer is directed to conduct expeditious investigation on the said aspects and find out whether there was
any corruption in the matter of appointing M/s.Lamaesta Builders and Engineers, apart from violation of rules. The Investigating Officer is further
directed to complete the investigation with regard to the measurements in the MBook and also the payment made to M/s.Lamaesta
Builders and Engineers as expeditiously as possible.
This Crl.M.C. stands disposed of as above.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this court again, if the investigation is not complete within a period of six months, if so
warranted.