Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Merajul Islam & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 June, 2013
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
14.06.2013. W. P. No. 14289 (W) of 2013
dc.
Merajul Islam & Ors.
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee ... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee,
Ms. Rituparna Majumdar
... For the Respondent Nos. 6 to 10.
In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the State- respondents at the time when this application is called on today.
Having regard to the fact that the tender process has already been completed and work order has also been issued by the concerned Municipality to the selected candidates for execution of different types of work mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 5th April, 2013, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the said tender process at this stage, particularly when the petitioners admittedly did not participate in the said tender process.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that his clients participated in the tender process pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender No. 2 of 2012- 13 in respect of some of the works mentioned in item nos. 1 to 23 of the said tender notice, but ultimately the said tender process was cancelled so far as item nos. 1 to 23 mentioned in the said Notice Inviting Tender is concerned and a decision 2 was also taken by the Board of Councillors that the tenderers who participated in the tender process in respect of item nos. 1 to 23 pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender No. 2 of 2012-13 will not be permitted to participate in the subsequent tender.
Mr. Mukherjee thus submits that in view of such resolution adopted by the Municipal authority, his clients were not permitted to participate in the subsequent tender process initiated on the basis of Notice Inviting Tender dated 5th April, 2013.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the Municipal authority refutes such submission of Mr. Mukherjee by drawing my attention to the subsequent tender notice being N.I.T. No. 01 of 2013-14 dated 5th April, 2013 to show that no such stipulation was included in the said Notice Inviting Tender for excluding the tenderers who participated in the tender in any of the items from item nos. 1 to 23 pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender No. 2 of 2012-13.
Mr. Banerjee further submits that though such a resolution was taken by the Board of Councillors on 30th March, 2013, but ultimately that part of the resolution was not implemented by the Municipal authority and as many as 66 such tenderers who earlier participated pursuant to the earlier Notice Inviting Tender No. 2 of 2012-13 were allowed to participate in the subsequent tender and some of them were also selected for awarding the work and the work order has also been issued in their favour.
3Considering such submission of the learned advocates of the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves no merit for consideration. The writ petition thus stands rejected.
(JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.)