Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd.& Anr vs The Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 27 February, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
27.02.2014
Item No.56
SB
W.P. 6412 (W) of 2014
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd.& Anr.
Vs.
The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.
Mr. J. Chowdhury,
Mr. S. S. Banerjee,
Mr. P. K. Srivastawa,
Mr. A. Ali,
Ms. A. Saha.............for the petitioners.
Mr. P. S. Basu,
Mr. S. Talukdar..........for the KMDA.
Mr. J. Mitra,
Mr. P. Khaitan,
Mr. P. Saha,
Mr. V. Jhunjhunwala..........for the respondent no.3.
Prima facie, I am satisfied on the basis of the documents produced by Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate for the respondent no.3 that it submitted its bid, online, on 17.02.2014, when the order of de- listing/blacklisting of the respondent no.3 by Suri Municipality was yet to see the light of the day. I am also prima facie satisfied, having regard to the pleading in paragraph 5 of W.P.6409 (W) of 2014 (filed by the respondent no.3 challenging the order of de-listing/blacklisting dated 18.02.2014), that the respondent no.3 received the order of de- listing/blacklisting only on 22.02.2014.
Considering the terms and conditions of the tender requiring submission of an affidavit to the effect that the intending tenderer has not been barred / de-listed / blacklisted by any Government department 2 / Government undertaking/ statutory body / municipality and other like Government bodies 'in supply tender during last five years', it again prima facie appears to me to be the intent of the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority not to invite bids from any barred/de- listed/blacklisted tenderer.
In view of the aforesaid prima facie findings, I find no reason to continue the interim order that was granted earlier. The same stands vacated.
However, any action taken during the pendency of this writ petition shall abide by its result.
The submission of Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the KMDA that it has been tentatively decided to place supply order on the respondent no.4 for 40% of the materials required and the balance 60% in favour of the respondent no.3 is recorded.
It is also recorded that the KMDA has on 25.02.2014 sought for a clarification from Suri Municipality as to whether it has indeed passed the order of de-listing/blacklisting dated 18.02.2014 or not. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the respondents by two week from date; reply, if any, thereto may be filed within one week thereafter. The writ petition shall be treated as ready for hearing on expiry of the period fixed above for exchange of affidavits and the parties shall be at liberty to mention it for consideration before the appropriate bench.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)