Disposed

M/S. Blue Chip Consultancy Service an Another v. the Chief Engineer and Administrator and Another

Calcutta HC8 Sept 2021WPA/191/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding an administrative delay in deciding a representation for renewing a contractor’s enlistment, the High Court directed the respondent to dispose of the pending application within four weeks, without examining the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

What did the court decide?

Resident to consider the representation dated 24th September 2020 and dispose of it within four weeks.

M/S. Blue Chip Consultancy Service an Another Vs the… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶2

¶3

WPA No. 191 of 2021

¶4

M/s. Blue Chip Consultancy Service and another … Petitioners Vs. The Chief Engineer and Administrator and another … Respondents Ms. Anjili Nag, Advocate … for the petitioners Mr.V.D.Sivabalan, Advocate … for the respondents

¶5

September 8, 2021 [GNC] Item No.01

¶6

The petitioner No.1 claims to be an enlisted contractor under the respondent/Administration and was participating in various tenders floated by the Administration. Subsequently, by a memorandum dated 9^th October, 2017 the position of the petitioner No.1 was upgraded based upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and such enlistment was valid upto 8^th October, 2022 with a tendering limit of Rs.40 lakhs. Subsequently, the petitioners’ enlistment with the tendering limit was revalidated and such limit was enhanced from Rs.40 lakhs to Rs.80 lakhs but the validity period was reduced to 6^th February, 2021 by memorandum dated 7^th February, 2021. Before the expiration of the validity period the petitioners made a representation on 24^th September, 2020 for renewal and/or extension of the enlistment and the grievance which is raised in the instant writ petition is that the respondents

¶7

¶8

are keeping mum and have not taken any decision thereupon. The petitioner is in dweldom whether his validity period has been extended or not which caused deprivation as the petitioners could not participate in various tenders floated by the Administration.

¶9

It is really an unfortunate that the application of such nature is being kept pending for such a long time and allowed the period to expire causing deprivation to a person of his livelihood or at least an opportunity to participate in the tender. Though Mr.Sivabalan appearing for the respondents raises various issues on the credential of the petitioners and the various allegations have been leveled against it but such allegations does not surface as the authorities have not taken any decision as yet.

¶10

The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the said representation dated 24^th September, 2020 submitted by the petitioners and dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶11

It goes without saying that this Court has not entered into the merit or demerits of the contents of the said application nor have gone into the allegations made by the respondents’ counsel and the said respondent shall be free

¶12

¶13

to take decision independently without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove.

¶14

The writ petition is thus disposed of.

¶15

(Harish Tandon, J. )

M/S. Blue Chip Consultancy Service an Another v. the Chief Engineer and Administrator and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Blue Chip Consultancy Service an Another v. the Chief Engineer and Administrator and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham Raj Vs the Medical Council of India and Ors.

Shri. Abdul Aleem Vs Shri. P. K. Sathyan

K.Jog Tata Rao and Ors. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Mira Biswas Vs Smti. Niva Roy

Jaydev Bairagi and Another Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others

Susheel Dixit Vs the Deputy Commissioner