Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anjan Baidya vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 September, 2019
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
93
17-09-2019
Court No. 08
Samrat
W.P. 8516 (W) of 2019
Anjan Baidya
-Vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. B.P. Subba,
Mr. Nibedita Chakraborty
.... For the Petitioner
Ms. Lapita Banerjee,
Mr. Joyee Maiti
... For the State.
Mr. Pushpendu Chakraborty,
Mr. Debabrata Sen
... For BPCL
Mr. Bandana Basu
... For WBSEDCL
Mr. Saumabha Ghosh,
Mr. Nikunj Berlia
... For Respondent No. 5
Affidavits, filed in Court today are kept on record. The writ petition is taken up for final hearing. An unsuccessful participant in the tender process for selection of appointment of retail outlet challenges the selection of the successful candidate in the present writ petition.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Oil Company accepted the tender of the private respondent wrongfully. He refers to Clause 14H of the Brochure. He submits that, the conditions laid down in Clause 14H of the Brochure have not been met by the private respondent. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that the land offered by the private respondent has an electrical line. Moreover, the measurements are not in accordance with the advertised descriptions. Therefore, the Oil Company could not have accepted the land of the private respondent.
State, Oil Company, private respondent and State Electricity Distribution Company are represented.
Clause 14H of the Brochure stipulates the conditions, which a land offered by a participant must fulfil. The 2 Brochure requires the Oil Company to undertake an inspection at the locale before finalization whether or not the land offered by a participant is acceptable. In the facts of the present case, the Oil Company held an enquiry at the locale. On enquiry, the Oil Company took measurements. The Oil Company prepared a chart on inspection, showing the compliance of the parameters of Clause 14H of the Brochure so far as the land offered by the private respondent is concerned. The Oil Company took the view that, the land offered by the private respondent is acceptable.
The materials made available on record does not allow the Court to arrive at a finding that the decision taken by the Oil Company in treating the land of the private respondent as acceptable to be contrary to the provisions of Clause 14H of the Brochure.
In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Oil Company.
W.P. 8516 (W) of 2019 is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)