Disposed

Wakedujjaman Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Apr 2022WPA/5529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public procurement grievance regarding a tender favorable to certain individuals, the High Court held that allegations require independent investigation by the District Magistrate rather than fact-finding by the writ court. Due to the time-bound nature of the work and lack of prima facie evidence in the petition, the court disposed of the writ without an order on merits while directing the DM

What did the court decide?

No order passed; writ petition disposed of without orders as to costs. Writ petition copies to be sent to District Magistrate Murshidabad for independent inquiry within four months.

Wakedujjaman Biswas Vs State of West Bengal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

05.04.2022 Court No. 19 Item no.06 CP

¶2

W.P.A. No. 5529 of 2022

¶3

Wakedujjaman Biswas

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Usof Ali Dewan

Mr. Asif Dewan

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunil Kr. Gupta

….for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

¶11

Mr. Jaharlal De Mr. Shamim ul Bari

¶12

…for the State.

¶13

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

¶14

Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 7.

¶15

The tender has already been issued in favour of the respondent no. 7 and the work is in progress. There is no scope for passing any interim order, either staying the tender process or injuncting the respondent no. 7, i.e. the successful bidder, from continuing the work as the tender was with regard to a public project and was to be completed in a time bound manner, i.e. within 15 days from the issuance of the work order. It is likely that the work has been completed.

¶16

¶17

The petitioner alleges that the tender was issued to favour some of the known persons of the Executive Assistant, Beharia Gram Panchayat Office.

¶18

Such allegation cannot be decided by this court as the writ court cannot be transformed into a fact finding authority. There are no documents annexed to the writ petition which would indicate that the illegalities are apparent on the face of record.

¶19

Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of without any orders.

¶20

The petitioner has filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Murshidabad on March 24, 2022 which was received by the office on March 25, 2022. The said representation of the petitioner may be disposed of in accordance with law, by the concerned District Magistrate upon hearing the petitioner, the panchayat authorities as also the respondent no. 7.

¶21

A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to all.

¶22

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

¶23

The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition in the office of the District Magistrate, Murshidabad.

¶24

¶25

This court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the entire issue shall be decided by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad independently.

¶26

The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Parties are to act on the server copy of this

¶28

order.

¶29

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Wakedujjaman Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wakedujjaman Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

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

Mira Banerjee and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Upswing Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ramzan Ali Munshi Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others

M/S. Sita Apparel Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Porporation and Ors.

Asit Mukherjee Vs the Panihati Municipality and Ors.

Wakedujjaman Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.