Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tirupati Agro Seed Distributors Pvt. ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 August, 2018
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
27.08.2018
Item No.11
ad
W.P No. 11604(W) of 2018
With
C.A.N 5919 of 2018
Tirupati Agro Seed Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amalesh Roy,
Mr. Debarsshi Dhar
... For the petitioners
Mr. Robiul Islam
... For the State
Mr. P.C Bhattacharya,
Mr. Manas Ghosh
... For the respondent no.5
Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ms. Rituparna Maitra ... For the respondent no.6 Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee, Ms. Saheli Mukherjee ... For the applicant for addition of party The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, a memo dated 22nd June, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3. Let the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners be kept on record.
Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that in terms of the West Bengal Financial Rules for works valued at Rs.5 lakh and above, there should be e-tendering through the centralised e-tender portal. Without following such procedure, the respondent no.3 had accepted the proposal of the West Bengal Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation Limited (in short, the said Corporation) for supply of soya beans in the ICDS 2 Projects of North 24-Parganas on pilot basis for a period of six months, as would be explicit from the impugned memo dated 22nd June, 2018. Upon such acceptance of proposal, the respondent no.3 issued a further memo dated 3rd July, 2018 from which it would be evident that the rate accepted was of Rs.85/- per kg. and one Nitesh Agarwal of Heritage Service & Supply Co-operative Society Ltd. was authorised by the said Corporation to effect supply.
He further submits that in terms of Rule 47(8), note-1, the said Corporation is also under an obligation to invite tender from eligible applicants. No such procedure as laid down under the Finance Rule has been followed by the said Corporation and no transparency has been maintained. The petitioners, who are ready to supply at a rate much lower than that offered by Nitesh Agarwal of Heritage Service and Supply Co-operative Society Limited, did not get any opportunity to contest.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 disputes such contention and submits that the said Corporation approached the respondent no.3 with a proposal to supply soya bean and such proposal was approved and thereafter co-operative societies were invited to quote their rates for the work in question. The petitioner no.1 is not a co-operative society and was not eligible to compete with the co-operative societies.
Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 submits that the work order has already been issued and work is in progress and question of any interference at this stage does not occasion. 3
In connection with the present writ petition, an application for addition of party being CAN 5919 of 2018 has been filed by one Tehatta Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. alleging, inter alia, that no letter was issued by the said Corporation inviting applications from eligible applicants. The said Corporation did not even answer the representation submitted by the applicant quoting a rate of Rs.65/- per kg. The said Corporation has proceeded in an illegal and arbitrary manner and such fact needs to be brought to the notice of this Court and as such the presence of the applicant is necessary.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and as the applicant also approached the said Corporation to avail necessary order towards supply of soya beans and as the grievance of the applicant is that the said Corporation has not acted in consonance with the West Bengal Finance Rules, I am of the opinion that for adjudication of the issues involved in the present writ petition, the presence of the present applicant is necessary. Accordingly, the said application being CAN 5919 of 2018 for addition of party is allowed. The learned advocate-on-record of the petitioners is granted leave to effect necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition and to supply a copy of the writ petition to Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the said applicant.
Records reveal that the work in question is being conducted on pilot basis for a period of six months and it pertains to supply of soya beans to ICDS Projects. The proposal of the said Corporation for supply of soya beans was approved by the district authority in the month of June, 2018 and the 4 respondent no.6 was authorized by the said Corporation to effect such supply on and from the month of July, 2018 and such work is presently in progress. In the said conspectus, issuance of the interim order, as prayed for by Mr. Roy, would lead to stoppage of supply of soya beans to the ICDS Projects causing extreme prejudice to the beneficiaries of the said project. Accordingly, the interim order, as prayed for, is refused.
However, all the issues, as agitated in the writ petition needs to be considered upon exchange of affidavits.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file their affidavits-in- opposition within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List the matter for final hearing in the combined monthly list of November, 2018.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)