Dismissing a writ petition under Article 226, the Court held that petitioners, being contract employees of private training providers, lacked statutory rights to challenge a tender bid. The application was rejected for lack of evidence and as premature.
Application under Article 226 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S/L 5 10.02.2021 Court No.26 SD
WPA 3329 of 2021 (Via Video Conference)
Sourav Karmakar & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta
… for the Petitioners.
Mr. Samrat Sen Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick
… for the State.
Mr. Bimbisar Dash
… for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8.
2
Government of West Bengal and these petitioners. He submits that the salaries/wages are also not paid by the State of West Bengal to these petitioners.
3
private training providers. In fact, in that case, the competitive bid was for choosing private training providers in addition to the already existing private training providers. This is not the case in the present matter. Furthermore, no principle or ratio has been enunciated in the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, and therefore, it does not have any precedential value.
“13. ……In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counteraffidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. …….”
4
5
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether contractual employees of private training providers have locus standi to challenge a vaccine procurement bid issued by the State.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable without annexing appointment letters and proof of payment under Article 226.
Whether a writ petition challenging a tender bid at the stage of issuance is premature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharat Singh vs State of HaryanaRelied on¶23
Bharat Singh –v- State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 534 · Who else cites this
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10843 of 2019Distinguished¶21
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10843 of 2019, Rajasthan High Court
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sourav Karmakar & Ors.
Union of India
Shekhar B. Saraf
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
