Central Information Commission
Mr.V K Sharma vs Delhi Jal Board, Gnctd on 19 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001545/8598
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001545
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. V K Sharma,
S/o of Balram Mathur
House No. - 474, Main Kanjhawal Road,
Karala, Delhi - 81.
Respondent : Mr. Lalit Mohan
Public Information Officer & Chief Engineer (West) Delhi Jal Board Government of NCT of Delhi Office of Chief Engineer (West) Varunalaya, Phase II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005.
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2010 PIO replied : 27/03/2010 First appeal filed on : 28/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 17/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 07/06/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Is it a fact that tenders against first call for the "P/I. 500mm dia Yes.
DI/CI rising main from proposed SPS at DP block to 2400mm dia brick barrel at MU-bloc, Pitam Pura work were invited vide NIT no. 49 (2007-08) due on 54.11.2007 and MIs. Nagpal Associates was awarded the work on 31.01.2008
2. What action was taken against the firm for not executing the Action was taken as per existing rules work even after award of the work apart from forfeiting the of DJB. ElM.
3. While dealing the case against non execution of work by the No. (as per records available) defaulting firm, whether any action was proposed and recommended by the EE and concerned SE(NW). If it is so, provide a copy of the recommended action and the action taken against the firm.
4. Is it a fact that tenders against second call for above work were Yes.
invited vide NIT no. 11 (2008-09) due on 5-6.06.2008 and rates offered by Ms. Mahavira Buildcon Nt Ltd. was found to be L1.
5. Whether the amount put to tender for the option against which Yes. However the amount quoted by L1 lowest offer was received was Rs. was 129.90% above the estimated costs. 54,62,711/-.
6. Whether any attempt was made to bring the rates down within No. However difference in quoted rates the vicinity of departmental justifications of rates by holding of department justification rate was negotiations with the L1 firm. more than 50%.
Page 1 of 37. Kindly provide the name & post of authority competent as per Member (Drainage) delegation of powers to order for discharge of tenders since the amount put to tender was more than Rs. 50 Lacs.
8. Kindly Provide the name & designation of officer under whose The case file is in process. Hence orders, tenders were actually discharged and whether he was information can be provided after competent to do so or not. received the file.
9. Is it a fact that tenders against third call for above work were Yes.
invited vide NIT no. 44 (2009-10) due on 10.12.2009 and rates offered by M/s. Mahavira Buildcon Pvt Ltd. was again found to be L1.
10. What was the initially departmental justification of rates for Justification for this work had been the option against which L1 offer was received prepared by the checked @8.42% above on BQ based division and thereafter checked by the circle office. Whether on D.S.R. 2007 by planning cell. there has been a vast difference between the justification prepared by the division and checked by the circle. What was the reason?
11. Kindly provide the total amount of expenditure against all Expenditure incurred Jst.Call Rs.
three calls of tenders on account of press publication 1.50Lakh Expenditure incurred 2nd
CallRs.3.00Lakh Expenditure incurred,
on 3rd Call-
Awaited.
12. Kindly provide the total period of delay due to non finalization of this particular tender case No , However the case file was under
process from time to time.
13. What is the difference between the total amount incurred on The difference between the total publication of press NIT thrice and amount considered higher amount incurred on Press NIT thrice than the deptt. Justification in respect to amount desired by the and amount considered higher than the L1 firm against third call of tenders. deptt. Justification is about 21 lacs
1. Press expenditure Rs. 4.50
2. Amount is difference higher to Departmental justification is Rs. 25.39 lakhs.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
I direct that with regards to query-2 action taken under DJB rules may be clearly specified. Information pertaining to query-3, 8, 10 & 12 has not been provided. The same may be supplied with a weeks time.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. V K Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Lalit Mohan, Public Information Officer & Chief Engineer (West); The PIO has given information after the order of the FAA but is directed to clarify the following: 1- Query-2: If any action has been taken against the firm apart from forfeiting the earnest money. 2- Query-8: The name and designation of officer under whose order the tender was discharged and whether he was competent to do this.
3- Query-10: What was the initially departmental justification of rates for the option against which L1 offer was received prepared by the division and thereafter checked by the circle office. Whether there has been a vast difference between the justification prepared by the division and checked by the circle. What was the reason?Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information on query-2, 8 & 10 as described above to the appellant before 05 August 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 19 July 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) Page 3 of 3