Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. In the reply it was further submitted by the respondent No. 3 that proposing the work to be done through a particular agency was based on the certificate dated 3.3.1998 of Collector Bilaspur. The quotations were invited, which was done by respondent No. 2 and after considering credential of the contractor based on the certificate of the Collector Bilaspur offers and quotations were considered by the respondent No. 2 after comparing the same from the rate given by the Government Agency. The first contract was given for 4.99 lacs and this cost was including the supply of five computers with key board and other material as has been mentioned supra in the return of respondent No. 2. The implementing agency was required to provide operating software MS - DOS (01 Windows 98) including service for above five computers sets and other necessary material. The agency was further required to provide the full time computer instructor for each school to conduct the class and one year maintenance of computer hardware and training to select school teachers and for that he was to provide the staff and full training programme. It was the contention of the respondent No. 3 that except to make the recommendations, the answering respondent No. 3 was not required to monitor the implementation of the scheme. The scheme was implemented in the year 1999 and no complaint was made by the petitioner. Such a petition can not be heard as PIL. It is a privilege of the parliament and its members and if any complaint is required to be made i.e. to be made to the concerned committee constituted by the Parliament. It has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner was demanding 10% amount of the total works order from the answering respondent and the same was not given, therefore to take revenge the present petition has been filed and the petition is liable to be dismissed as has been filed on malafide considerations. It is also submitted that the Commissioner Gwalior Division has submitted its report on 18.1.2007 after enquiry, but said report has been submitted without proper application of mind to the relevant facts and other considerations. The report is bad in law and various objections about the aforesaid report have been raised.