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

Dilip Kumar Chatterjee vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 30 June, 2009

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee

                                 WP No. 592 of 2009

                            IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                         Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

                                      ORIGINAL SIDE



                               DILIP KUMAR CHATTERJEE

                                         Versus

                            STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.


For Petitioner :         Mr. J. Mitra


For Respondents :        Mr. S. Bose

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 30th June, 2009.
The Court: The petitioners challenge a decision by the Government to, in effect, discontinue a benefit that had been conferred on enlisted contractors. The petitioners challenge a notification issued by the Public Works Department that provides for enlisted contractors being treated at par with other contractors in the matter of PWD tenders for construction or repair of roads.
The petitioners refer to the earlier notification of 2001 under which the maximum limit of security deposit that enlisted contractors were required to keep with the Government was Rs.5 lakh. In lieu of such deposit, the enlisted contractors could participate in any tender enquiries published by the Public Works Department without being required to furnish any additional security deposit in respect of individual enquiries. The petitioners say that the benefit has been retained for enlisted contractors in respect of contracts upto the value of Rs.62.5 lakh, but there is no 2 rationale as to why such benefit has been taken away for contracts above the value of Rs.62.5 lakh.
The petitioners say that the corrigendum to the original notification has been recently issued following which the first petitioner has to deposit exorbitant sums to be entitled to participate in further tender enquiries floated by the PWD.
The matter does not call for any ad interim order since other contractors, enlisted or not, and similarly placed as the first petitioner would also have to deposit such amounts as the petitioners would be, to be entitled to participate in the tender enquiries.
Affidavit-in-Opposition within two weeks as prayed for; reply within a week thereafter. The matter will appear for final hearing on July 27, 2009.
Urgent certified photstat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) sm AR[CR]