Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

M/S. Aditya Construction vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 12 September, 2013

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee

                                         1



Sl. No. 91
12.09.2013.
    S.d.                  W.P. No. 23487 (W) of 2013


                               M/s. Aditya Construction
                                      -versus-
                           The State of West Bengal and others .


                   Md. Mokaram Hossain
                   Mr. Sanjay Bhattacharya
                                      ...for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly
                   Mr. Pankaj Halder
                                    ...for the State.

                   Mr. Bhagbat Chowdhuri
                           ...for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.

The concerned school is represented today. An original document dated April 16, 2013 has been produced in court which reflects the bids and an endorsement apparently made by the tender committee to the effect that the petitioner's bid was abnormally low and the petitioner's credentials were doubtful. On the basis of such recording, the tender committe rejected the lowest bid of 11.11 per cent less than the estimated price of construction and accepted the bid of one Chintamani Misra who had offered 0.5 per cent less than the estimated cost.

2

Prima facie, there appears to be sufficient justification in the petitioner's offer not being accepted, particularly since the school authorities claim that a previous construction work undertaken by the petitioner for the school authorities has been left incomplete and photographs of such incomplete construction have also been carried to court. The interim order passed on August 29, 2013 is vacated and it is observed that the allotment of work in favour of Chintamani Mishra will abide by the result of the petition.

Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of two weeks; reply thereto, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. This petition will appear in the monthly list of December, 2013.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 3