SAMPURAN SINGH AND SONS Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in this case is a proprietor of M/s. Sampuran Singh and Sons at Payal in District Ludhiana. The complainant states in the complaint that he struck a deal with the respondents by filing a tender form for supplying wooden 'bee hives' boxes to the respondents as published in the tender notice 3/90 in the newspaper 'punjab Tribune' dated 24.1.1991. It is alleged that the tenders were opened by the Purchase Committee on 6.3.1991 at 3.00 p. m. in the presence of the complainant and he was told by the Purchase Committee that the decision to allot the work will be taken shortly. It is stated in the complaint that in the meanwhile the complainant got tested the wood at the Design-cum-Development Centre and submitted its report to the respondents on 11.21991 alongwith the sample of wood. According to the complainant in the second week of March, 1991, a Local Agriculture Inspector persuaded him to buy some 'beehive' boxes on subsidy and then he learnt that the work was allotted by the Purchase Committee at the higher rates to those tenderers who were not present on 6.10.1991 and that he was not informed by the concerned authorities as to why his tender was rejected. It is further stated that in anticipation of the work being allotted to him he started cutting his trees for making the boxes and that if he had known that the work was not being entrusted to him, he would not have cut his trees. He has stated that he had suffered a loss in his business to the tune of about Rs.1 lac by the illegal acts of the respondents. He has prayed in the complaint that the respondents be directed to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% p. a. from 6.3.1991 till its realisation.

(2.) On notice being issued, the respondents resisted the complaint by raising a preliminary objection that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that it was clearly mentioned in the tender notice that all wooden parts of 'bee hive' boxes should be of 'kail' or 'deodar' wood and that cutting of trees by the complainant other than 'kail' and 'deodar' without receiving the supply order was at his own risk and that the tender submitted by the complainant was not in accordance with the specifications of the tender notice and therefore, it was rejected and the question of making any compensation to the complainant did not arise.

(3.) The primal and solitary submission of Mr. Sampuran Singh, complainant is that the respondents be directed to accept his tender for supplying the 'bee hive' boxes and reject the tenders of those persons who offered to supply the wooden boxes on higher rates. The question that arises for determination is whether the Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The relief claimed by the complainant as stated above, is in the nature of an injunction and the power of issuing injunctions has not been conferred under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act')to this Commission. More over the provisions of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code also have not been made applicable to the proceedings before this Commission.