M Jayaram
I would like to have your kind reply on the events that took place recently in our society, as described.
Our society needs to have major repair work carried out as it is 20 years old and no periodic maintenance had been carried out. IIT had been chosen to carry out the structural audit and their report was made available in August, 2014. On a request made to them, they had suggested 3, specialised, structural contracting firms.
A tender was prepared & issued through a Consultant (also a specialist in society repair work)
At the SGM held previously to the tendering process, a resolution was passed that “structural” work should be carried out only by the IIT advised contractors.
The due date for submission of the tenders was 28th February, 2015. Out of the three (advised by IIT); all, picked up the tenders, but, did not quote. One of them officially sent a SMS of regret to both PCHSL & the Consultant.
On coming to know that none of the IIT advised contractors had quoted, some (Managing Committee) MC, members took it on themselves to follow up with two IIT advised contractors to obtain their quotations; one, SSSPL responded with a partial offer for structural work, only; on March 03rd; 2015. This partial offer was accepted by PCHSL, along with a covering letter from SSSPL that they were quoting only for structural work, on advice from the Consultant.
There was no prior MC meeting, nor mandate, nor was the Consultant advised till this process was half way through.
It is also known that some other MC members had met SSSPL, for reasons best known to them, prior to the bidding process,
Subsequently, a meeting with all 4 contractors – Vishwakarma, SSSPL, Technics Unlimited & Painterior (India LLP), in that order, was held on 9th February in the Society Office, as organised by the Consultant.
SSSPL was initially represented by a design engineer who was not in a position to reply to the questions put to him except that they had quoted partially as they were basically structural repair people; only. There was undue attention by one committee member who went the extent of prompting the SSSPL representative on what his replies should be.
At this point, the aforesaid MC member went to the extent of calling up Dr Joshi (MD) of SSSPL to attend the meeting, on his own initiative and without any permission from either the Chairman and Secretary or Consultant, who were all present at the interview, or without the mandate of the MC, to do so.
Dr Joshi clearly mentioned that their interest in work for PCHSL was only due to the request from some PCHSL MC members in this regard and their association with IIT, Mumbai. He also clarified that they generally do not generally carry out plumbing, plastering and crack filling work. He further clarified that crack filling related to, or as created at the time of structural work will be carried out by them; in this case.
No objection was raised by either the Chairman / Secretary or senior members of the MC; who were also present on the open prompting being made to a contractor; by one committee member.
On request from PCHSL, Dr Joshi took back his partial offer and agreed to quote for all the items in the tender.
It should be noted that by this time, the Consultant had already submitted their comparison chart of the rates submitted by all four bidders and was available with all MC members – it is pertinent to note that the interested MC member did not attend the rest of contractor interviews.
SSSPL submitted their revised, almost complete offer the next day, as agreed.
In a meeting of the MC on Sunday, 15th; the Chairman brought in Mr Kale, resident & lawyer, who said that under bye law 159, the whole tendering process was invalid & that it need not be referred back to the SGM for approval. He went on to say that SSSPL should be only be selected for carrying out the entire repair work and all decisions could be taken by the Managing Committee, itself.
As a resident who has to foot the bill; I believe that all these actions are illegal.
Your advice, as early as possible, would be highly appreciated.
I C Naik
In this matter the relevant Bye-laws (Assumption) of the C H S could be the following.
157.(a)The Committee shall be competent to incur expenditure on the repairs and maintenance of the society’s property, if the expenditure does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-
(b) If the expenditure on repairs and maintenance of the society’s property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-, prior sanction of the meeting of the general body of the society shall be necessary.
(c) The meeting of the general body of the society shall decide:
(i) The limit up to which the expenditure on repairs and maintenance of the property of the society could be incurred by the Committee without calling for tenders for the work. In respect of the work, the cost of which exceeds the limit, so fixed, the Committee shall follow the procedure of inviting tenders, placing them before the general body meeting for approval and entering in to contract with the architect (if appointed) and the contractor.
(ii) The limit of expenditure on repairs and maintenance of the property of the society to be incurred by the society in a co-operative year.
158.Subject to the provisions of the bye-law No. 157(a), (b) and (c), the committee shall proceed to carry out the repairs and maintenance of the property of the society. It shall be the responsibility of the Committee to see that the repairs are carried out as per the contract.
One can see that the managing committee has not followed the procedure laid down in the Bye-laws and hence for their actions for any loss as may be determined by the Registering Authority (upon the members complaining), the members of the Committee will be personally held liable to bear as provided under Section 73[1AB] of the M C S Act 1960 which is reproduced below:
(1AB) The members of the committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for all the decisions taken by the committee during its term relating to the business of the
society. The members of the committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for all
the acts and omissions detrimental to the interest of the society.
Provided that, before fixing any responsibility mentioned above, the Registrar shall inspect the records of the society and decide as to whether the losses incurred by the society are on account of acts or omissions on the part of the members of the committee or on account of any natural calamities, accident or any circumstances beyond the control of such members:
Provided further that, any member of the committee, who does not agree with any of the resolution or decision of the committee, may express his dissenting opinion which shall be recorded in the proceedings of the meeting and such member shall not be held responsible for the decision embodied in the said resolution or such acts or omissions committed by the committee of that society as per the said resolution. Such dissenting member, if he so desires, may also communicate in writing his dissenting note to the Registrar within seven fifteen days from the date of the said resolution or decision. Any member, who is not present for the meeting in which the business of the society is transacted, and who has not subsequently confirmed the proceedings of that meeting, such member shall also not be held responsible for any of the business transacted in that meeting of the society.
Please note that the Registrar has the powers to disqualify such members from being on the Managing Committee for 5 years.