VISHWAS STEEL INDUSTRY Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD BEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Beed Zilla Parishad issued by publication in newspapers a short tender notice inviting tenders for supply of certain items of furniture such as dual desk, floor desk, steel tables, teak tables etc., with teak or novapan tops for use in the schools run by the Parishad. The Zilla Parishad in the notice gave an estimated cost of the goods, the earnest money to be deposited by the tenderers and made it known to the tenderers that time is essence of the contract and that after the contract is concluded, the supply should be made within 15 days, failing which the contractor will be liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day as penalty. In all 17 tenderers submitted their quotations and a comparative table was prepared giving their quotations item-wise. The table alongwith the tender documents was placed before the General Body of the Parishad in its meeting dated 5-2-1986 in which a discussion ensued above the modus operandi of choosing the contractor in view of the fact that the contract amount was a large one. It was pointed out to the General Body that under paragraph (5) of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 125 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 ("the Act"), a resolution of the General Body is a sine quay non before incurring expenditure of the contract amount. The General Body resolved to meet again on 20-2-1986 and the Chief Executive Officer promised that details of the proposals would be sent to the Councillors by registered post.

(2.) As decided, the General Body meeting was held on 20-2-1986 in which the subject became an appeal of discord. The Chief Executive Officer pointed out that the samples of the items of furniture have been kept in the Zilla Parishad High School and the members may visit the School and inspect the samples upon which a member, Mr. Swami, suggested that a committee may be appointed for that purpose. The Chief Executive Officer again reiterated that the samples have been kept for inspection and may be so inspected by all the members, but submitted that whether all should inspect the same or a few should do so was a matter of decision of the General Body. Another member, Mr. Khedkar, was of the view that if all the members inspect the samples, they would not be able to arrive at a decision to purchase the items of furniture and hence a committee should be constituted and that committee should be given all the powers to effect the purchases. Ultimately, the General Body passed a resolution constituting a committee of seven members to a assisted by four officers to "effect purchase of items of furniture for use in the Education Department after inspecting the samples thereof."

(3.) The seven-member committee so constituted met on 28-2-1986 and discussed the issue. They took into account the technical advice given by various experts like the General Manager of District Industries Centre; Vice-Principal, Industrial Training Institute, and resolved that keeping durability of the items in view it would be better to effect purchase of item having teak wood top rather than a novapan one. The Committee then considered the tenders item-wise and took decision likewise about placement of the contract. It so happened that as the rates of respondent No. 3, Mahavir Audogic Sahakari Sanstha were the lowest, most of the contracts were placed with it except the item of S type steel tube chairs, where the Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation emerged the winner as they had quoted the lowest rate.