Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
10638/2012 on 14 June, 2013
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
S/L.l8.
14.06.2013.
bpg.
(Assigned) RVW No.257 of 2012
Mr. Ashok Chakraborty,
Mr. Saptarshi Roy.
.... for the appellants.
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee,
Mr. Anadi Banerjee.
for the writ petitioners/respondents
Re: C.A.N.10638 of 2012.
This is an application for condonation of delay of 23 (twenty three) days in preferring the application for review against judgment and order dated July 24, 2012 passed by Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. (as Hon'ble Chief Justice then was) and one of us (Asim Kumar Mondal, J).
We are concerned with the ferry service for transport of the railway staff across the Hooghly river by launch between Shalimar to Garden Reach.
On July 26, 2011, an open tender was published in the news papers by the railway authorities. Three persons responded to the notice including the respondents in this review application. The bid was, however, submitted in the name of the respondent no. 1.
The railway authorities, subsequently, cancelled the said open tender on the ground that there was a defect in fuel estimation cost.
The respondent no. 1 was one of the bidders and we are informed that the respondent no.1 gave the highest bid.
However, the tender was cancelled due to such defect in full estimation cost and the authorities adopted single tender process. The ferry service was allotted to West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Limited (a wholly owned company of the government of West Bengal) for the period between May 4, 2012 to May 4, 2013. However, the pontoon was badly damaged and the ferry service could not be commenced. Ultimately, work order was issued on December 9, 2012, for one year.
The writ petitioner-respondents filed the writ petition before the Hon'ble Single Judge challenging the order of the railway authorities cancelling the open tender. The Hon'ble Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition on April 10, 2012.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal dated April 10, 2012 the writ petitioners filed intra-court appeal tendered under M.A.T. no.703 of 2012.
By the order dated July 24, 2012, the Division Bench clarified the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge by observing that the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench would not prevent the writ petitions from making any proposal in writing to the Chief Operational Manager, South Eastern Railway at Garden Reach. The said Chief Operational Manager was, however, directed to consider the said representation in accordance with law, provided, however, it was permitted under the rules and the rates quoted by the writ petitioners were acceptable. In that event, it would be open to the railway authorities to invite other bidders to put in their offers matching offers of the writ petitioners.
The application for review is filed alleging that it could not be pointed out to the Division Bench, on the date of passing of the order, that, already, a single tender was floated and order has been issued in favour West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Limited for running the ferry service.
There is 23 (twenty three) days delay in filing the application for review.
The writ petitioners file an affidavit-in-opposition.
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, learned advocate, appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents, points that there were threadbare of arguments before the Division Bench and the learned senior counsel for the railway authorities were instructed by many officials of the railway authorities including one Mr. Giri. He submits that as the order was passed in presence of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and the railway authorities were represented by a senior counsel, there was no reason for filing the review application and there was no explanation for the condonation of delay in filing such application for review.
It appears to us that it was not pointed out to the Division Bench that, already, the ferry service has been allotted to West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Limited, a fully owned Corporation by the Government of West Bengal. The authorities thought that the order requires consideration in such background.
We feel that the appellants/petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application for review in time. It is common knowledge that the Government records move slowly.
Thus, we allow the application for condonation of delay of 23 (twenty three) days in filing the application for review subject, however, to the payment of cost of Rs.5,100/_ (Rupees five thousand one hundred) only to the writ petitioners/respondents. Let such cost be paid by three weeks from date by issuing a cheque drawn in the name of the writ petitioners/respondent no.1 and shall be handed over to Mr. Anadi Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/respondents, in this Court.
If the cost, as aforesaid, is paid, the office shall register the application for review, if the application for review is otherwise in form.
In default of payment of cost, as aforesaid, the application for condonation of delay shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the application for review shall, also, stand dismissed.
(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Asim Kumar Mondal, J.)