Disposed

Wakedujjaman Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Apr 2022WPA/5535/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of a public tender evaluation. Court dismissed the writ petition citing belated filing and work near completion. It directed District Magistrate to investigate allegations of bias upon hearing all parties within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to serve order on District Magistrate to investigate alleged irregularities 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.07 CP

¶2

W.P.A. No. 5535 of 2022

¶3

Wakedujjaman Biswas Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Usof Ali Dewan Mr. Asif Dewan

¶6

…for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶8

….for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

¶9

Mr. Soumitra Mukherjee Mr. Rajat Dutta

¶10

…for the State.

¶11

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the financial evaluation of a tender process.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

that the work is near completion. The prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted at such a belated stage. The work order dated March 24, 2022 is taken on record.

¶17

The petitioner alleges that the tender was issued in favour of persons close to the Executive Assistant of 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 alleged illegalities are apparent on the face of the 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

¶24

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.

¶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.