Contents of complaint

Comments  of Sh. D.K.Chopra, Project Director (RE) and Sh. Suresh Kumar, Technical Manager, (HAREDA)

Point No. 1: The change of LED based Shikshadeep/ solar lantern to CFL based Solar Lantern model-II.

HAREDA has three programme of Solar lantern i.e. 1 solar lantern for General public 2.  Solar lantern for SC students 3.  Shikshadeep. Accordingly, HAREDA invited bids for supply of approx. 40900 solar lanterns (Shikshadeep) which has cost of approx.  Rs. 1400/- per lantern on annual rate contract under the Scheme on promotion of ED based Shikshadeep during the year 2010-11 .  The total turnover of Rs. 600 lacs  for the year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 was required.  Accordingly, the firms i.e. M/s Dynamic Power, Sonepat (L-1), M/s RGVP Energy Sources Pvt. Ltd., Gandhi Nagar (Total Turnover Rs. 600 lacs at that time) and M/s Advance Solar Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad were short listed for supply of these 40900 shikshadeep solar lantern.  However, this bids were drop by HPPC due to some technical reasons.  Thereafter, again bids was initiated to procure 32500 nos. of LED Solar Lanterns (Shikshadeep).  However, the same was dropped on receiving the feedback from field officer that these LED based solar lanterns, previously supplied by M/s RGVP Energy Sources Pvt. Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, not working properly and beneficiary not satisfied with Lux level of this items.  Accordingly, it was decided to procure CFL Based Solar Lantern for all above three mentioned scheme, so that, there is demand of approx.  63,000 solar lantern during the year 2011 with approx cost of Rs. 2400/- per system. i.e. HAREDA has to procure solar lantern of Approx.  Rs,. 1600 lac ( the copy of relevant documents attached in Annexure-A)

The Shikshadeep Scheme was allocated to the undersigned vide office order dated 1.9.2010.

As per the office record, before assigning the LED Solar lamp (Shikshadeep) scheme to the undersigned, HAREDA had provided 18610 LED Solar lamps @ Rs. 1675/- per system to various districts of the State for the year 2008-09 for meritorious girl students. Sh. P.K.Yadav, SE (A) was the scheme in- charge at that time.

The last tender for 40,900 LED Solar lamps (38,100 Shikshadeeps to meritorious girl students + 2800 Shikshadeeps to SC/BPL students of Shivalik Area) was dropped in meeting of the HPPC held on 24.11.2010. The tender advertisement of this last tender was forwarded to the Public Relation Department on dated 29.7.2010 for publishing in the newspapers. This indent was based on tentative demand for two years for Shikshadeeps to meritorious girl students i.e. for the year 2009-10 & 2010-11 and tentative demand of the Shivalik Development Agency (SDA). However, SDA did not provided funds for the same. The purchase file for the indent of 40,900 Shikshadeeps was routed through SE (A) and AD to Director (RE&H) and FC&PS, RE-cum-Chairman, HAREDA.

Thereafter, at the end of November, 2011, it was decided on file that first, we should ascertain the relevance of the scheme and conduct a study on the use of Shikshadeep & its utility. It was also decided to obtain actual demand for the Shikshadeeps from the districts.

Further, a meeting was held on 12.2.2011 under the Chairmanship of the Director, HAREDA with all the District Officers. There was general opinion in the meeting that the illumination of existing LED Solar Lamp is less and after detailed deliberations, it was decided in the meeting :

(i)   Solar Lantern, Model II (A) with 10 Watt Solar Panel, 12V 7AH Battery & 7Watt CFL will be the appropriate lamp for reading the Girl Students under the Shikshadeep Programme and same should be provided.

(ii)  The warranty of the Shikshadeep should be two years.

(iii) The existing clause i.e. 10% of the total quantity to the new manufacturers should be deleted. Only uniform eligibility criteria for the bidders should be in the tender document.

       In the meanwhile, demand from the districts for shikshadeep was obtained and following was the actual demand for the year 2009-10 and tentative demand for year 2010-11 ( for the meritorious students of Academic Session 2010-11 which was to be announced in 2011-12) : 

Year : 2009-10

1-    Total demand :  15288 nos

2-    Left over systems available with district from previous year:  3233 nos.

3-    Actual demand : 12055 nos

4-     

Year : 2010-11

Tentative demand :  16298 nos

Since, the full availability of funds with HAREDA was only for the year 2009-10. Accordingly, it was decided by the office that HAREDA may proceed to purchase 12055 Solar lanterns (Shikshadeep) for the meritorious girl students for the academic session 2009-10 and arrange rate contract of the Solar Lantern.

Accordingly, bids for the purchase of 12055 CFL based Solar Lanterns with 10W SPV Module, 12V7Ah SMF battery & 7W CFL   and arranging the annual rate of this item was invited through press advertisement through Public Relation Department in the Month of March, 2011. The indent was got approved from the worthy FC&PS, RE-cum-Chairman, HAREDA. The technical part of bids and the price part of bids was opened on 24.5.2011 and 3.6.2011 by the Tender Opening Committee and Standing Technical Committee respectively.

Thereafter, with the approval of worthy FC&PS,RE-cum-Chairman, HAREDA, the draft agenda for the purchase of 12055 Solar lantern and arranging the rate contract of this system was sent to the DSD, vide letter dated 29.6.2011,  for placing  in the next meeting of the HPPC to decide the rates.

It is mentioned that till 30.6.2011, the file(s) of shikshadeep were routed through SE (A) & AD.

Thereafter, vide office order dated 1.7.2011, besides Shikshadeep, Solar Lantern (which was earlier looked after by Sh. P.K.Yadav, SE (A) was also allocated to the undersigned. As per these office orders, file (s) of the undersigned was to route through PD.

When the undersigned took over the charge of Solar lantern programme from Sh. P.K.Yadav, SE (A) & examined the files, it was founds that fund for the year 2009-10 (Rs. 61.00 lacs for Solar lantern to SC students & Rs. 41.00 lacs for Solar lantern to General Public) &  for the year 2010-11 ( Rs. 61.00 lacs for Solar lantern to SC students & Rs. 94.00 lacs for Solar lantern to General Public)   stand drawn and same were available with HAREDA. Thus the total funds including Shikshadeeps were available for about 47000 Solar lanterns. This was brought to the notice of the PD & DG (RE&H) immediately.

The specifications of Solar lantern & shikshadeep were same and the agenda for purchase of 12055 systems & arranging the rate contract had already been submitted with the DSD. DSD had also communicated to this office that meeting of HPPC shall be held on 20.7.2011. Therefore, the actual requirement of 47000 solar lanterns / shikshadeep, as mentioned above, was discussed with DG(RE&H) in the presence of the PD. On the consent of the DG(RE&H) , 20 copies of revised agenda with following amendments in  the last line of  para- 8 & 9 was forwarded to the DSD for onward distribution among the members of the HPPC :

Revised

“Further, approx. 47000 Solar Lanterns are to be purchased within three months time from the date of issue of work order and capacity of L-1 bidder to supply the Solar Lanterns is 24000 in three months. Therefore, as per procurement policy, besides L-1 bidder, L-2 bidder may also be invited to appear before the HPPC”.

9- The approximate purchase value is Rs. 1116.00 lacs”.

Before revision

Further, as per DNIT, 12055 Solar Lanterns will have to be supplied within three months time from the date of issue of work order and capacity of L-1 bidder to supply the Solar Lanterns is 24000 in three months. Therefore, as per procurement policy, only L-1 bidder may be invited to appear before the HPPC”.

It is pertinent to mention that DSD had circulated only the revised agenda to the members of HPPC, containing 47000 systems, which was forwarded by the HAREDA on 7.7.2011. During the meeting of the HPPC held on 20.7.2011, the matter was specially brought before the HPPC by the worthy FC&PS,RE-cum-Chairman, HAREDA about increase in quantity from 12055 to 47000 before negotiation the rates with the suppliers.  On this, it was informed by the worthy FC&PS, Industries & Commerce Department, Haryana that since it is indent for arranging the annual Rate Contract; therefore, there is no binding on increase or decrease of quantity to be purchased during the currency period of the rate contract. It also added that details on Shikshadeep &  solar lantern scheme alongwith breakup of 47000 solar lantern was  given in the shape of note for pad with the file of Hon’ble Minister-RE ( Chairman, HPPC), worthy FC&PS,RE, DG(RE&H) and PD.

Initially M/s RGVP Energy sources (L-1 bidder) had given the delivery capacity of 8000 systems per month. Accordingly, in view of total requirement of 47000 systems, it was proposed in the agenda note to arrange RC with two bidders i.e. L-1 &L-2. HAREDA had also issued notice to both L-1 &L-2 bidders for the meeting of HPPC. But the Committee asked the L-1 bidder about the delivery of systems per month. The L-1 supplier had informed that he can supply approx. 20000 systems per month. Accordingly, the HPPC had decided this annual rate contract in favour of M/s RGVP Energy sources in this meeting held on 20.7.2011.

As regards the work order(s) placed for about 63000 solar lanterns with the approved firm, it is mentioned that since valid rate contract for the system was available, therefore, according to budget availability, work order(s) for 62748 systems have been placed so far including the year 2011-12. 

From above it is evident that the undersigned has not concealed any fact at any level rather, it has brought the factual position before the higher authorities in time for appropriate decision at their level and to utilise the funds in time.

Point No.-2     Made M/s RGVP, Gandhinagar eligible for supply of 63,000 solar lantern by issuing tender notice of only 12055 nos. of Solar lantern. 

(a)  Issuing tender notice of less quantity :- There was requirement of procurement 63000 nos. of Solar lantern/ Shikshadeep having 10 Watt module, 7 W CFL and 12 Ah battery during the year 2011-12 (including back log of 2009-10 and 2010-11) with HAREDA.  It was assessed that the cost of this lantern shall be around Rs. 2400/- .  So the total amount of purchase was to Rs. 1600 lakhs.  As per eligibility criteria, the total turnover of eligible firm for the year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 was to be 1330 lakhs.  Sh. Suresh Kr, TO was very well aware of the fact the total turnover for these three years of M/s RGVP eligible for the bid he submitted the proposal of very less purchase of 12055 Solar lantern only and simultaneously added the word annual rate contract so that he can issue the work order of 63000 nos.  of lantern from the back door during 2011-12, once M/s RGVP become eligible for supply.  He initiated the tender in march 2011 by informing his higher authorities that there is demand of just 12055 solar lantern and kept the same till the price part of the bad was opened during the June, 2011.  Whereas, the previous tender was also invited for 40,900 solar lantern.  (the copy of document attached in Annexure-B (a)).

Comments on quantity have already been mentioned in point 1.

As regards to eligibility criteria of turnover is concerned - 30% of total estimated value of the tender is incorporated by HAREDA as average turnover of the bidder in last three years. The total value  was estimated Rs. 289.00 lacs for 12055 Shikshadeeps and accordingly 87.00 lacs was required average annual turnover of the bidder in the last three years ending on 31.3.2010 in the DNIT.

It is pertinent to mention that complainant has raised a point that if the indent was to be published for 63000 solar lanterns with total estimated value of Rs. 1330.00 lacs (it may be read as               Rs. 1512.00 lacs, as per actual calculation) , then M/s RGVP Energy Sources, Gandhi Nagar was not qualifying. This is not true as the average annual turnover of this bidder in the last three years ending on 31.3.2010 was Rs. 687.00 lacs ( submitted with the bid of 12055 solar lanterns)  whereas if we calculate required 30%  average annual turnover for 63000 Solar lanterns with value Rs. 1512.00 lacs it comes to Rs. 453.6 lacs say 454.00 lacs.

Though it was the RC tender and firm M/s RGVP Energy Sources was eligible as per the DNIT condition of minimum turnover, therefore, there is no merit in the claim/ complaint of the complainant.

Complainant has said that the word annual rate contract had been added after opening of price bid. It is not true as the notice inviting tender (NIT) published in the newspapers through DPR was for the rate Contract.

(b)  (1) The change of Approved Agenda of HPPC as own level by Sh.Suresh Kr. :

     Once he came to know that M/s RGVP is L1 he became wiser.   He submitted the agenda for HPPC meeting for purchase of 12055 Solar lantern amounting to Rs. 286 Lakhs on the noting file to Sh. Arun Kr, DG and Sh. Vijai Vardhan, FCPS as per DNIT and got it approved to invite M/s RGVP for negotiation during HPPC meeting.  Once getting the approval from FCPS he changed the copy7 of agenda and increased the quantity of purchase to 47000 amounting to R.s 1100 lakhs and circulated 20 copies of the changed agenda to all concerned for HPPC meeting.  The mains point which are changed are as:-

It is further submitted that as per DNIT, 12055 Solar Lanterns will have to be suu;oied within three months time from the date of issue of work order and capacity of L-1 bidder to supply the Solar Lanterns is 24000 in three months.

Since the L-1 bidder has the full capacity of supply, therefore, as per Haryana Govt.’s procurement policy, only L-1 bidder may be invited to appear before the HPPC.  The approximate purchase value is Rs. 286.00 lacs. 

However, the agenda send to HPPC is found different as:

In April, 2008, HAREDA has procured 2195 such solar lanterns @ 2925/- (Inclusive of all taxes/ VAT etc. with two year warranty) per lanterns. 

Further, approx. 47000 Solar Lanterns are to be purchased within three months time from the date of issue of work order and capacity of L-1 bidder to supply the Solar Lanterns is 24000 in three months.  There3fore, as per procurement policy, besides L-1 bidder, L-2 bidder may also be invited to appear before the HPPC.  The approximate purchase value is Rs. 1116.00 lacs.    

            Rate per systems- Rs. 2350/-

            Raise bill from Haryana

            Original quantity of RC was 12055 systems (The copy of document attached in Annexure-B (b) (1))

Comments about the circumstances for change of agenda have been mentioned in point 2(a). 

(b) (2) Manipulating the proceedings of  meeting of HPPC:-  Sh. Suresh Kr, TO once again manipulated the things and got the proceeding approved from the Committee of HPPC without mentioning the quantity of purchase.  He got the proceedings approved for rate contract only and deliberately not mentioning the quantity of Solar lantern i.e. 12055 systems for which bids was initiated.  It is pertinent to mention here that rate contract of any item is never done with on firm.  There should be at least three firms on rate contract as it ensures supply in time.   The proceedings wee approved on 08.08.2011 and Sh. Suresh Kr, TO issued the work order lto totaling 34494 solar lantern on 16.08.2011 to M/s RGVP.  He again manipulated the things and got approved the work order from Sh. Arun Kr, DG on four different files, on different dates without informing him that they have invited tenders of just 12055 Solar Lanterns(  The copy of document attached in Annexure –B (b) (2)). 

HPPC had decided the annual rate contract of the item; therefore, there was no relevancy of mentioning the indent qty in the proceedings of HPPC. 

As regards awarding the rate contract in favour of single bidder instead of three bidders (as mentioned by complainant), this was totally the prerogative of the HPPC. 

The members of HPPC had signed the proceedings on 4.8.2011 and the file for issuing the rate contract was again processed on 5.8.2011. Thereafter, on the approval on DG(RE&H), RC was issued in favour of successful bidder on 8.8.2011. The acceptance of the same was received in the office on 10.8.2011. Only, there after work order(s) were issued with the approval of the DG(RE&H) on the respective file.

There were three programmes (i) Shikshadeep, (ii) Solar Lantern to General Public and (iii) Solar lanterns to SC students, therefore, target year-wise work order(s) were put up on concerned files to maintain the proper record for the purpose of submission of UC(s), record of SNEs etc.  

(c)  Deliberately changing the capacity of M/s RGVP to supply solar lantern :-  It is mentioned here that M/s RGVP has submitted his capacity of supply of solar lantern of just 8000 per month in his bid, but in the meeting of the HPPC it was deliberately mentioned that M/s RGVP has enhanced their capacity to 20,000 per month to ensure that no other firm may be invited for supply and rate contract of Solar lanterns.  Now it can be verified that M/s RGVP was not capable to supply 72000 solar lantern in 3 months because till date they have supplied only 20,000 solar lantern (in 9 months).  (The copy of document attached in Annexure-B (c) ). 

Each & every place i.e.  in the comparative statements, agenda of the HPPC etc.( except proceedings of the HPPC)  , office had mentioned that the capacity of supply of systems by M/s RGVP Energy Sources  was 8000 nos per months.

As informed above that on the instance of HPPC, the representative of the firm informed the HPPC that their firm has capacity to supply approx. 20,000 solar lanterns per month. Accordingly, same was recorded in the proceedings of the HPPC.

As regards the delay in the supply of systems by M/s RGVP Energy sources is concerned, the penal action is being taken as per the terms & conditions of RC and  work order(s) on the respective file and so far penalty of amount of Rs. Rs. 13,89,723/- has already been  imposed. 

(d)  Deliberately, changing the purchase of 12055 no. of system to Rate contract of indefinite quantity and added the self made date in Rate Contract:- Further, it is mentioned that as per procurement policy of State Government, the rate contract was valid from 1.5.2011 to 30.4.2012 but Sh. Suresh Kr has deliberately extended the rate contract for solar lantern to 7.8.2012, so that he can issue work order of 30,000 Solar lantern of 2012-13 also to M/S RGVP before 7.8.2012 @ 2350/- without inviting fresh tenders.  It is pertinent to mention here that cost of solar modules has decreased substantially during last one year and it is anticipated that rates of this item will fall substantially if fresh tenders are invited.  The procurement which was initiated for purchase of approx. 12055 solar lanterns was changed to rate contract for indefinite quantity and period of rate contract was include deliberately of Two financial year i.e. 2011-12, 2012-13.  Further, the said rate contract also include purchase for which it was initiated i.e. 2009-10.  Moreover the purchase of 2010-11 was deliberately included in this rate contract, without mentioned anywhere.  So, by initiated the purchase of approx. 12055 solar lantern of Shikashadeep scheme for the year 2009-10, Sh Suresh Kumar has issued work order for procurement of 62784 nos, of solar lantern for all scheme of HAREDA for the year 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2011-12 and going to issue work order of approximately 30,000 solar latern  for the year 2012-13.  (the copy of  documents attached in Annexure-B (d))

The indent was for annual rate contract and HPPC had awarded the same. It was clearly mentioned at page 13, para -16 (xix) in the DNIT that this rate contract shall be valid for one year from the date of its issue. Accordingly, the validity of rate contract is from 8.8.2011 (date of issue) to 7.8.2012.

Work order (s) had been issued as per the terms & conditions of RC & DNIT.

 As regards, the decrease in rates of SPV modules is concerned, it is mentioned that in the agenda of the HPPC meeting , the  following comparative rates of the Solar Lanterns were placed  before the HPPC held on 20.7.2011 for their reference to decide the rate   :

(i) DGS&D, Govt. of India

Rs. 2700/- (2011-12)

( two years warranty)

(ii) Uttar Pradesh ( UPNEDA)

Rs. 2690/-  (March,2011)

( five years warranty)

(iii) Jharkhand ( JREDA)

Rs. 2995/- 

( two years warranty)

Besides this, rates of L-2 bidder (M/s CEL Electronics Ltd., Hydrabad – A Govt. of India Enterprises) were Rs. 2635/- per system.

Consequent upon, increase in qty of Solar Lanterns, rates of L-1 bidder (Rs. 2375/- per system) were negotiated by the HPPC and it was decided on Rs. 2350/- per system.

(e)  Financial loss of Rs. 400 lakhs to State Government by justifying high rate of solar lantern in HPPC and hiding further decline in rate of solar module :- Further, as per rate given by HAREDA to HPCC was Rs. 2350/-, little lower than the rate quoted by M/s RGVP Energy Sources, Gandhi Nagar.  In the document of HAREDA, the rate of solar module (10 Watt) used in solar lantern was taken as Rs. 120/- to Rs. 140/- per watt in the meeting of HPPC on 20-7-2011 whereas, the rate of solar module (45 Watt) used in solar street light was taken as Rs. 85/- to Rs. 95/- per watt in the meeting of HPPC on 21-9-2011.  Why this different in the rates of solar module used in two different system justified by HAREDA to HPPC.  This was done also by Sh. Suresh Kumar, Technical Officer of Indenting Department so that M/S RGVP, Gandhinagar get higher price.  However, it is clear from the another HAREDA document that rate of module had been reduced.  Moreover, the bids was submitted in months of March whereas meeting of HPPC held in months of July and rate of solar module has been slashed done due to global scenario.  Further, it is world wide fact that the rate of the solar module has been reduced drastically at a high pace in the year 2011 and at the month of October 2011, the rate of Module was reduced upto Rs. 60-70/-.  Accordingly, Hareda has purchased these lantern 10 Wattx60 rate per Watt = Rs. 600/- costly than the available in market.  So, 600x62748= 3,96,00,000/- i.e. approx. 4.0 crore public money was lost.  Say that a financial loss to State Government of Rs. 4.0 Crore was deliberately done by Sh. Suresh Kumar, Technical Officer. Hareda to benefit the said firm.  Further, till today the Hareda is purchasing solar lantern module on Rs. 140/- per watt whereas market rate is below Rs. 60/- per watt.  This fact was never brought to notice of Higher authority and no new Purchase was initiated whereas committed quantity was only 12055 system.  (the copy of document attached in Annexure-B (e))

As already mentioned in para 2(d) above, the rates finalised by the HPPC for the purchase of solar lantern are far below the rates of other states and as such there was no loss to the State Govt.

It is mentioned that no doubt that SPV Module is major part of the system but it alone only does not affect the cost of the system. There are another key parts/ components in the system like battery, electronics, casing, CFL, labour, packaging, transportation etc. Therefore, price evaluation is being done on the basis of cost of complete system instead of cost of single part/ component. 

In the complaint, complainant has said that during the purchase of LED based solar street lights in the meeting of HPPC held on 21.9.2011, rates of solar module were placed Rs. 85-95 per watt whereas during the meeting of HPPC held on 20.7.2011, rates placed by HAREDA were Rs. 120-140/- per watt which loss to State Govt. of Rs. 4.00 crore.  

In this context, it is submitted that HAREDA had purchased 42 nos of LED Street lighting systems in the month of  May, 2010 @ Rs.14650/- per system whereas the rates finalised in the meeting of HPPC on 21.9.2011 for the same item with same specifications & warranty period  for about 1800 systems were Rs. 16000/- per Solar street light. This difference of cost about Rs.1350/-per system shows that only cost of alone solar module does not affect the cost of complete system.

(f)   Financial loss of Rs. 200 lakhs to State Government to changing quantity from 12055 to 63000 nos :- In this regard, it is crystal clear that Sh. Suresh Kr, TO has manipulated the things to favour M/S RGVP and kept their higher authorities in dark.  If tender of 63000 nos. of Solar lights would have been invited than it is pertinent to mention here that cost of Solar lanterns would have come down at least 10% i.e by Rs. 300/-lantern, as increased quantity always decrease the cost.  By doing this they have made loss of Rs. 200 lakhs to the State Government.

Comments on quantity have already been mentioned in above paras. As it was annual rate contract, therefore, no restriction on decrease or increase the purchase quantity on the valid rate contract.

As mentioned above, rates finalised by HPPC were lowest as compared to other states & DGS&D, Govt. of India. No loss to State Govt.

(g) Financial loss of Rs. 200 lakhs going to happen in the year 2012-13:- Further, as this rate contract is valid upto 8.8.2012, so Sh. Suresh Kumar will be definitely ready to issue work order of 30,000 nos. of Lantern to said firm for the year 2012-13. Sothat, a another financial loss of Rs. 2.1 crore (700 per system x 30,000 nos of system) is going to happen.

Comments as in above paras.

It is mentioned that purchase of solar lanterns yet to be made. State Govt. has yet to approve the Budget/ Plan for the 2012-13.

Point No-3 Issued Work Order of 1500 lakhs to M/S RGVP without verifying the financial and technical (manufacturing) capability.

1.    M/s RGVP was financially not competitive for such a large order:- On going through the comparative statement of eligible firms it has been noticed that M/S RGVP was having minimum turnover as compared to other bidders.  He has shown average turn over of just 200 lakhs per annum.  Whereas, the work order of Rs. 1500 lakhs was issue to this firm within time of Six months.  Which is also proved from the fact that the said firm fail to supply the order even within extended period of six months ? (the copy of document attached in Annexure-C (i))

2.    M/s RGVP was not manufacturer of solar devices :- Further, they have shown themselves as manufacturers of charge controller of Solar lantern, but on opening the device of M/S RGVP it revealed that they have installed charge controller of some other firm.  There are three major components in Solar lantern i.e. Solar Module, Battery and Charge controller.  As per DNIT the firm is only eligible if they are manufacturer of any one of them.  But, M/S RGVP is not the manufacturer of eany thing from these three components.  It is pertinent to mention here that before issuing work order of 1500 lakhs to any firm at least the financial and technical manufacturing capability of must have been verified by committee of HAREDA.  But, in this case. No committee was proposed by Sh. Suresh Kr, TO to verify the financial and technical manufacturing capability.  They kept on issuing work order regularly to M/S RGVP during 2011-12 without ensuring that whether they have executed the previous orders in time as per DNIT or not.  The manufacturing capacity of said firm may be verified till today also as still lot of work order is still pending.  (the copy of document attached in Annexure-C (ii))

3.    M/s RGVP fail to submit the Performance security well in time:- As per work order, M/S RGVP was required to deposit the performance guarantee of 10% of total purchase value within 15 days of issue of work order.  But, M/S RGVP has failed to abide by this condition.  This fact was concealed by Sh. Suresh Kr, TO with higher authorities and kept on issuing repeated work orders without getting 10% of performance guarantee within 15 days of issuing work order.  This was done intentionally because any firm having total annual turn over of just 200 lakh can never  give performance guarantee of 150 lakhs in advance. In contrary, HAREDA has given 25% of purchase value as advance to M/S RGVP without taking applicable performance security.  This advance value as advance to M/S RGVP without taking applicable performance security.  This advance amount is used by M/S RGVP to execute the orders in parts.  This has already delayed the execution of complete orders by 9 months.

      By doing so, Sh. Suresh Kr has used the funds of HAREDA at will, without informing the higher authority of the Department.  This is great risk on the part of HAREDA, because if the situation arises that the firm back tracks from executing the work order than entire scheme can jeopardized and State Govt. will suffer a great monetary loss.  (the copy of document attached  in Annexure-C (iii). 

As per DNIT, it was required that bidder should be manufacturer of either SPV Module or battery or electronics. It was also required that average annual turnover of the bidder should be min. Rs. 87.00 lacs in the last three years ending on 31.3.2010. The status of M/s RGVP Energy sources was as under :

1-    Firm was registered with Industries Department, Haryana and having its manufacturing unit in Pipli. Vide Form No. 15989 dated 28.11.2008, GM, DIC, Industry Department, Kurukshetra has registered the firm as a manufacturer of electronics renewable and equipments and products.

2-    Average annual turnover of the firm in last three years ending on 2009-10 was Rs. 687.00 lacs against min.       Rs. 87.00 lacs required in DNIT.

It is mentioned that in previous years also, HAREDA had given many work orders/ contract to M/s RGVP Energy sources for supply/ installation of Solar LED Lanterns, Solar street Lights, Solar LED Home lights, solar power Plants etc with the approval of the HPPC.

Therefore, the said allegation of the complainant is not true that the firm was not fulfilling the technical & financial conditions of the bid.

It was required that firm shall submit PS within 15 days of issue of work order and work orders wise status on submission of PS by the firm is as follows :

1-    4100 nos Solar Lantern (General Programme) for the year 2009-10

( work completed, PS submitted)

2-     4357 nos Solar Lantern ( SC students) for the year 2009-10

( work completed, PS submitted)

3-    225 Solar lanterns to Veterinary Hospital, Sirsa

( work completed, PS submitted)

4-    12055 Shikshadeep ( girl students for the year 2009-10)

(5874 systems supplied. Supply of 6181 systems under progress, PS submitted)

5-    9400 nos Solar Lantern (General Programme) for the year 2010-11

( yet to be supplied, PS submitted)- last date for supply was 10.4.2012- firm has offered inspection which is scheduled on 10.5.2012. 

6-    4357 nos Solar Lantern ( SC students) for the year 2010-11

( yet to be supplied, PS submitted) last date for supply is 15.5.2012

7-     14595 Shikshadeep ( girl students for the year 2010-11)

( yet to be supplied, PS not submitted) last date for supply was 25.4.2012

8-    1659 Shikshadeep ( girl students for the year 2010-11)

( work completed, PS submitted)

9-    5000 nos Solar Lantern ( SC Students) for the year 2011-12

( yet to be supplied, PS submitted) last date for supply is 30.5.2012

10- 7000 nos Solar Lantern (General Programme) for the year 2011-12

( yet to be supplied, PS not submitted)- Last date for supply is 26.5.2012 for 3450 systems & 26.7.2012 for 3550 systems. .

(i)            It may be mentioned that in the cases where the firm has not submitted the PS, the office has issued notice to the firm time to time with the approval of competent authority. In cases where the firm has not submitted PS on time, firm has been advised that 10% of their payment will not be released until it submits the PS.

(ii)          It is further mentioned that as per the terms & conditions of work order if the supplier fails to supply the material within scheduled time period, penalty @ 2% of delayed material shall be imposed. It is informed that so far, penalty of an amount of   Rs. 13,89,723/- has been imposed on delay supplies.

Point No. 4     Extension of the supply period of M/s RGVP (without imposing any penalty) by concealing the facts from Higher Authorities.

            Sh. Suresh Kumar, TO, HAREDA issued work order of 34494 nos. of Solar lantern/ Shikshadeep to M/s RGVP on 16.11.2011 and 23.08.2011 and last date of supply of these lantern was 15.10.2011 and 22.11.2011.  But M/s RGVP was not able to supply single lantern till last day i.e. 15.10.2011.  The HAREDA issued notice to M/s RGVP and advised him to officer inspection for material and ensure to delivery of the material on dated 18.10.2011.  M/s RGVP again failed to abide by the advise given by department, but contrary to that made an excuse that he is not able supply the material due to closure of production of batteries of Luminous make vide its letter dated 14.11.2011 and requested to allow the use of battery to Artheon make just to buy extra time for supply without any penalty.   Sh. Suresh Kr, TO tried his best to push through the request of M/s RGVP by giving false claim that he had verified the fact and accordingly justified the claim of RGVP  to his senior authorities.   He has proposed as many as 5 times  to the senior authorities on one pretext or other to allow M/s RGVP to use make of Artheon in place of Luminous by giving false justification that luminous batteries are not available in the market and the proposed many time to extend the supply period of M/s RGVP without any penalty upto 15.06.2012.  But he was not able to fool Sh. Arun Kumar, Director General, HAREDA.  In contrary to that DG directed Project Director on dated 21.02.2012 that

1.    A team of officials to be constituted by Project Director to visit the premises of Luminous technologies to ascertain the truthful of their claim. 

2.    Has the supplier informed us on time, if so, the details. 

3.    Ask the supplier to carry on with the supply as we will take some time to settle the issues of penalty for the delayed supply. 

       The Project Director, HAREDA constituted the committee of three officers of HAREDA including Sh. Suresh Kr, TO.  The committee visited the site of manufacturing unit of Luminous batter at Janakpuri, New Delhi on 29.02.2012 and found that the claim of M/s RGVP and Sh. Suresh Kr, TO were totally baseless.  The General Manager of Luminous confirmed that they were producing 30,000 batteries per month regularly and they are going to enhance the production upto 70,000 from March, 2012,  It was also confirmed that they have received demand of 50,000 batteries from M/s RGVP (however, the date on which this demand was done by said firm and how much advance was given was hide by Sh. Suresh Kumar) were totally baseless and that unit was producing 1,00,000 batteries per month. 

       Although, Sh. Suresh Kumar, TO was not able to change the make of batteries but they succeeded in providing extension for supply of Solar lantern upto 30.05.2012 without any penalty.  This was done because they never informed as desired by Sh. Arun Kumar, DG that M/s RGVP has not applied for extension in time i.e. before 15.10.2012 and the claim of M/s RGVP were false and baseless regarding non-availability of Luminous battery.  In contrary to that they have proposed Sh. Arun Kr, DG that extension of supply of solar lantern may be provided to M/s RGVP without any penalty.  Meanwhile, they have also issued the additional work order of supply lantern to M/s RGVP, enhancing total work order upto 62748 nos.  (the copy of document attached in Annexure-D (i))

(i)      Financial loss of Rs. 200 lakhs for not imposing penalty:-  By giving extension as mentioned above, they have done loss of Rs. 300/- per lantern by not imposing penalty of delay of 6.5 months (13% of cost i.e. 2350) amounting total loss of Rs. 200 lakhs (62748 X Rs. 300/-) to State Government. 

(ii)     Financial loss of Rs. 4 lakhs by giving extra time in work order:-  In the DNIT delivery time given is 3 months whereas in the recent work order of 7000 No. of lantern, the mentioned for supply was deliberately mark 4 months by fooling the higher authority and hiding the real fact of DNIT, so that penalty was not imposed on M/s RGVP as the said firm is unable to supply the system in time.  However, no permission of Competent Authority i.e. HPPC was taken to given extra time in work order for supply of the systems.   (The copy of document attached in Annexure-D (ii))

(iii)    Not following the work order clause of delivery time and extension thereof and not canceling work order as firm fail to supply within extended period:- The following work order were issued to M/s RGVP Energy Sources Pvt. Ltd. , Gandhi Nagar as per information given by HAREDA:-

      Now, it is clearly mentioned above again that there is budget provision of approx 62748 nos.  of solar lantern in the HAREDA for the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, so why only purchase of approx.  12055 solar lanterns was initiated?  This has done deliberately to give all order to M/s RGVP Energy Sources Pvt. Ltd., Gandhi Nagar from back door. 

       Further, as per DNIT and in all the work order, the delivery time Clause 3 of orders is as under:-

      These systems are to be supplied within two months from the date of issue of this work order. 

      This time for and date delivery or dispatch stipulated in the work order shall be deemed to be the essence of the contract, and should the contractor fail to deliver or dispatch any consignment within the period prescribed for such delivery or dispatch stipulated in the supply order, the delayed consignment will be subject to 2 % penalty per consignment per month recoverable on the value of the stores supplied.  In case of non-payment of the contractor, recovery will be made from his bills or amount of Earnest money or security deposited with Director, HAREDA provide also that:

        No recovery of penalty will be made if the Director, HAREDA accepts the delayed suppliers by extending the delivery period on receipt of such a request from the supplier by recording in writing that the exceptional circumstances were beyond the control of the supplier and there was no loss to the Government. 

      On the failure of the suppliers to make supply & installation within the extended period or otherwise and the receipt of such information in the office of the Director, HAREDA, risk purchase at the cost of the supplier will be made by the Director, HAREDA within 2 months of the expiry of stipulated delivery period by inviting short terms quotations from the Registered and other known suppliers.  The difference of excess cost thus, incurred with be recovered from this supplier from his pending bills, earnest money or security whichever is available.  This procedure will be adopted after serving a registered notice to the supplier to supply stores within 15 days. 

        As the supplier has fail to supply the solar lantern within extended period whereas none of the above said work order was cancelled.  However, it is clearly mentioned in work order clause.  This was also done by Sh. Suresh Kumar, Technical Officer, HAREDA by deliberately hiding these fact from Higher Authority so that M/s RGVP Energy Sources Pvt. Ltd. Gandhi Nagar may be  benefited.   (the copy of document attached in Annexure-D

       Moreover, the HAREDA is also placing repeated order to said firm, as on 27.03.2012 also the work order of 7000 Solar lantern was issued. 

      At last, I also inform to the authority that no inspection report of material supplied by the said firm was given to me and whenever I have filed the RTI, immediately on next day, all the work order issued to M/s RGVP was made online on website of Hareda.  However, till today, ot on a single noting I found the complete details of all the work order issued to M/s RGVP.  Now, it is clear that to save himself, Sh. Suresh Kumar, T.O. done this deliberately so that he may justified later on that I have not hide any information.  However, I haven’t found any other items work order on website. 

        In the nutshell & in view of information provided by HAREDA, it is crystal clear that M/s RGVP was made eligible for tender of solar lantern from back door and given higher rate of said items whereas the firm is not financially (average annual turnover is Rs. 200 lakshs only) and technically (not manufacturer as per DNIT) competitive for such a large order os Rs. 1500 lakhs.  Further, every effort was made thereafter to benefit the said firm including extension of six months on wrong ground by hiding and manipulating the fact and reality. 

        This result in Financial loss of Rs. 1004 lakhs (400+200+200+4 lakhs as mentioned above in details) to the Haryana Government/ fraud to benefit the M/s RGVP.  Further, it is understood to a Aam Aadmi, that at least 50% of above fraud i.e. 500 lakhs has gone to the pocket of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Technical Officer,  HAREDA as they become money minting tool of M/s RGVP or say he is agent of the said firm in Hareda as he has done there best to hide and manipulate the fact from Higher Authority and to befool them for benefiting M/s RGVP at the cost of public money. 

It is submitted that on 14.10.2011, a representation was received in the office from the supplier that the material of Solar lantern except battery is ready in their premises. The reason for delay was intimated as shortage of SMF battery in the market due to shut down of battery manufacturing unit in China.

Supplier requested to the office to allow it to use Artheon Make battery instead of Luminous make battery (which was submitted by the bidder in its original bid). After detailed Market survey, the matter was placed before the Standing Technical Committee (STC) under the Chairmanship of DG(RE&H) comprising of Technical expert of Industries & Commerce  Department, PD( RE), AO (RE&H) and T.O.. In the meeting, held on 24.11.2011, based on the facts, the Standing Technical Committee in principle decided to consider the request of M/s RGVP Energy Sources to supply solar lanterns/ shikshadeep with Artheon make battery besides Luminous make battery, however, since the rate contract of solar lantern/ shikshadeep was finalised through the DSD, therefore, it was also decided that concurrence of the DSD, Haryana may be obtained in the matter”. Accordingly, vide letter dated 6.12.2011, the matter was forwarded to the Director, DSD.

In response to that vide letter dated 21.12.2011, DSD conveyed that the department can  decide the issue at their  level keeping in view the terms & conditions of NIT and the matter may be referred to their office in case the decision of the HPPC is required. 

Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the worthy FC&PS,RE-cum- Chairman, HAREDA wherein  it was decided  that  first availability of Luminous make batteries may  be confirmed directly  from the firm and if necessary, manufacturing unit of the firm may also be visited.

In the meanwhile, M/s RGVP Energy sources vide letter dated 27.12.2011 submitted to this office that due non receipt of batteries their supply of solar lantern had delayed and requested to HAREDA to grant extension up to 30.6.2012.

The rates and availability of batteries , based on the information sent through e-mail by both M/s Artheon & M/s Luminous was as follows :

1-    M/s Luminous : Unit rate – Rs. 570/-

Capacity- 12000 batteries till March,2012 and further, 15000-20000 batteries per month April, 2012 onward.

2-    M/s Artheon : Unit rate – Rs. 590/-

Capacity- 45000 batteries till March, 2012.

Above information was collected by the committee comprising of PD (RE), JD (I&C), AO(RE&H) and TO direct from M/s Artheon & M/s Luminous.

In view of the above facts, the matter was again forwarded to the FC&PS, RE-cum-Chairman, HAREDA to grant extension in delivery period to M/s RGVP Energy Sources according to the capacity of the supply of Battery by M/s Luminous to M/s RGVP Energy Sources.

In the matter, FC&PS, RE-cum- Chairman, HAREDA directed that in view of the special circumstance faced by the supplier, Director, HAREDA may consider extending the supply period as requested as per the terms & conditions of the rate contract.

Thereafter, Director General , HAREDA desired that :

(i)    A team of officials to be constituted by PD to visit the premises of Luminous Technologies to ascertain the truthful of their claim.

(ii)  Has the supplier informed us on time, if so, the details.

(iii) Ask the supplier to carry on with the supply as we will take some time to settle the issue of penalty for the delayed period.

Consequent upon, a committee comprising of Sh. Sombir Singh, PO, Sh. Ajit Bhadu, PO and Sh. Suresh Kumar, TO was constituted to visit Delhi office and Una (HP) unit of M/s Luminous  and submit  report.

Sh. Sombir Singh, PO gave in writing that he will be on leave from 27.2.2012 to 23.3.2012 and requested to include any other officer in place of him in the committee. Sh. J.S.Kohli, STM, HAREDA was included in the committee.

The said committee visited Delhi office on 29.2.2012 and Una unit on 2.3.2012 of M/s luminous and submitted following report :

29.2.2012

(i)      The committee met Sh. Manish Anhal, General Manager-UPS Channel, M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.  He confirmed that the mail on the subject “requirement of luminous make 12V7Ah sealed maintenance battery (SMF) used in the Solar lanterns” was issued by M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C-8-9, Community Centre, Behind Janak Cinema Complex, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

(ii)     Sh. Manish Anhal informed that earlier their manufacturing capacity of SMF     12V7 Ah battery was 30,000 nos per months which is being increased to about 70,000 nos per month from the March, 2012. He informed that due to some pollution issues in China, the production of the batteries was suffered.  He informed that M/s RGVP Energy sources has demanded for 50,000 batteries from  their firm and same  shall be provided ( on advance payment) to it by the May , 2012. In the month of March, 2012, their firm shall be able to provide 20000 batteries and remaining in April (20,000 nos) & May (10000 nos).

2.3.2012

(iii)   The committee met Sh. Akshoy Kumar Rout, AGM-Manufacturing & Sh. Raj Kumar, Manager, Production, M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and saw the manufacturing process of the battery. The plant was well equipped and using latest machineries in the production of the batteries.

(iv)    It was informed to the Committee that firm has now overcome the problem occurred due to shortage of the raw material used in the batteries. Sh. Akshoy Kumar Rout informed that production of the batteries (12V7AH) from the March, 2012 onward shall likely increased to about 1, 00,000 per month.

Thereafter, based on the report of the said committee regarding availability of battery, shortage of batteries for some time etc., DG (RE&H) accordingly granted extension in the delivery period with the original luminous make battery. The extension was granted by the DG (RE&H) for a very limited period. 

Penalty is being imposed as per the terms & conditions and so far penalty of amount of Rs. Rs. 13, 89,723/- had been imposed. Moreover, it is informed that each file of payment is sent to Accounts Officer, RE&HAREDA to examine the case in details.

It is mentioned that so far firm has supplied material of value about Rs. 340 lacs and on this amount an amount of Rs. 13,89,723/- has been deducted as penalty amount.

The figure financial loss of Rs. 200.00 lacs for not imposing the penalty shown by the complainant totally self made and baseless. 

As regards the placing of work order for 7000 solar lanterns, it is submitted that before placing the work order, demand from the districts was obtained. While sending the demand, it was requested by some district offices that in view of capacity of their store, material be supplied in phase manner rather whole supply in one lot. Accordingly, two phases (i) 3450 systems and (ii) 3550 systems was made for the work order placed on 27.3.2012 for 7000 systems. As per work order, supplier shall supply first phase material within 2 months of placing the order and the second phase material within next two months from the first phase.

There is no loss to Govt. and work order had been placed with the approval of competent authority as per terms & conditions.

The terms & conditions of DNIT as well as work order are being followed strictly and penalty clause is being invoked on delayed supply. Firm has also been advised to supply the material as per schedule failing which HAREDA may consider risk purchase