PARESH NATH DAS, S/O. RAGHUNATH DAS, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. CHANDAN SECURITY SERVICES, KANIKA ROAD, TULASIPUR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 04.10.2011 (Annexure -1) issued by opposite party No.2 -Executive Officer, Sambalpur Municipality by which allotment of sanitation work awarded in favour of the petitioner in fifteen Wards of Sambapur Municipal Council, Sambalpur vide office letter dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure -4) has been cancelled on the ground that such order is violative of the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender call notice floated under Annexure -2.

(2.) PETITIONERS case in a nutshell is that on 18.06.2011, the tender call notice was published in the daily Odia Newspaper "The Sambad", which was cancelled due to unavoidable reasons. Another tender call Notice was published on 04.07.2011 (Annexure -2) inviting quotations from the intending firms for executing the cleaning work in fifteen Wards of Sambalpur Municipal Council. The petitioner is one of the tenderers to the Tender Call Notice dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure -2). In compliance to the tender call notice floated under Annexure -2, the petitioner submitted all the required papers after complying with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said tender call notice. The bids of the petitioner along with others, who participated in the tender, were considered. After opening of the bid it was found that the petitioner was the 2nd lowest (L -2) and another firm "DISA" became L -1. Since DISA (L -1) could not comply with the terms and conditions of the tender call notice, the petitioner was called upon to match with the price quoted by 'DISA. After negotiation, petitioner had agreed to execute the work at the rate quoted by DISA(L -1) and the tender was finalized in favour of the petitioner. After observing all the formalities the work order dated 27.07.2011 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the work order issued under Annexure -4, the petitioner started the sanitary work as per the work order. While the matter stood thus, letter dated 04.10.2011 (Annexure -1) was issued to the petitioner cancelling the work order issued in his favour. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) MR . B.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submits that the opposite parties have cancelled the work order vide office order No.7109 dated 04.10.2011 due to exorbitant rate quoted by the petitioner in course of negotiation and step for cancellation of work order was duly approved by the council of Sambalpur Municipality. Prior to publication of Tender Call Notice dated 04.07.2011, another agency namely, BISWA was executing the sanitation works and after completion of its contract, Sambalpur Municipality floated the tender in question on 04.07.2011 inviting sealed quotations from the intending and registered Firms/NGOs/Organizations and contractors for executing the cleaning works in respect of 15 Wards of Sambalpur Municipality which includes road sweeping, cleaning, drain cleaning, lifting, bush cutting, spraying disinfectants, lifting of garbage to identified collection points of Municipal Council. It is submitted that pursuant to the work order, no agreement has been executed in respect of the work order dated 27.07.2011. Due to vehement objection of some of the Councilors of Sambalpur Municipal Council, the work order was not given effect to. On 26.08.2011, the learned Collector and District Magistrate interfered in the matter and directed opposite party no.2 to cancel the earlier tender and to go for a fresh tender fixing the ceiling price per Ward. The Collector, Sambalpur in exercise of power under Section 399 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 directed the Executive Officer to undertake the work of cleaning of the Wards by hiring labours, vehicles, trolleys and purchasing necessary equipments in this regard. On the strength of the Collectors order now the Municipality Authority is doing all sanitation works. However, due to inadequate number of staff, the Municipal Authority has admittedly failed to provide cent percent sanitation work. On the basis of the direction of the Collector, Sambalpur dated 26.08.2011, the work order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Executive Officer in his order No.7109 dated 04.10.2011 (Annexure -1). Subsequently, vide order dated 28705 dated 20.10.2011, Government of Orissa, Housing and Urban Development Department has also cancelled the tender process due to exorbitant rate quoted by the petitioner and direction was given to go for re -tender for privatization of sanitation works. A detailed price chart has been made in respect of each ward for cleaning, sweeping and lifting of garbage, but the same has not been given effect to due to the interim order dated 01.12.2011 passed in this case. Proposed rate was placed before the Council of Sambalpur Municipality for its approval before publication of tender call notice afresh. The Council in its C.R. No.3 dated 29.10.2011 has approved the rate for each Ward and Rs.1,60,000/ -has been fixed per month in respect of each Ward and also permission has been accorded for privatization of sanitation works of Sambalpur Municipality. Thus, Sambalpur Municipality has decided to go for fresh tender for privatization of sanitation works in respect of 15 Wards. It is stated that there are 29 Wards under Sambalpur Municipality and sanitation works are being done by Sambalpur Municipality with the help of its staff in respect of 14 Wards and for the rest 15 Wards, tender was floated for privatization due to inadequate staff. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never started the work in question as per the work order. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition in this regard are not correct. Prior to cancellation of the work order, adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner for negotiation and there is official record to this effect. Hence, there is no question of mala fide intention on the part of the Executive Officer as alleged by the petitioner.