W.P. No. 22556 (W) of 2010 with W.P. No. 20591 (W) of 2010. Case: Rafik Miya Vs State of West Bengal. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 22556 (W) of 2010 with W.P. No. 20591 (W) of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ravi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Suman Sankar Chatterjee and Arindam Sen and For Respondents: Prafulla Ghosh and Snehasish Bala for the State, Saptangshu Basu and Aparna Banerjce |
| Judges | N. Patherya, J. |
| Issue | Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 (1) |
| Judgement Date | December 08, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
N. Patherya, J.
-
By these writ petitions, the petitioner has sought to challenge the letter dated 14th September, 2010 and seeks cancellation of the fresh tender notice dated 23rd September, 2010.
-
The case of the petitioner is that he was the lowest bidder and on the basis thereof was selected and Work Order was issued. W.P. 20591 (W) of 2010 was filed challenging the notice dated 14th September, 2010 and during its pendency a tender notice was issued on 23rd September, 2010. The said cancellation dated 14th September, 2010 is without any reasons and is based on the oral decision of the B.D.O. Without assigning of any reasons therein, renders the notice dated 14th September, 2010 and subsequent tender notice as bad and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on AIR 2010 SC 2794 and AIR 2010 Gau 108.
-
Counsel for the respondent-authorities submits that the agreement between the parties is in the realm of a contract and in view of section 14 (1) (a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as damages would be sufficient compensation and section 14 (1) (a) being applicable, this writ petition merits no order. In fact, pursuant to tender dated 23rd September, 2010 an agreement has been entered into with respondent No.6 and rights have accrued in his favour. All that the petitioner could be entitled to is loss of profit and damages will be an adequate relief. As there is no public law involved and the commercial element paramount, no order need be passed on this application. Reliance is placed on 2004 (9) SCC 786 and 2008 (2) SCC 1098.
-
Counsel for the private respondent submits that pursuant to the notice inviting tender an application was filed and tenders opened on 30th September, 2010. Appointment has been made on 5th October, 2010 and thereafter Work Orders issued. Therefore, this writ petition merits no order.
-
The petitioner, in reply, placed reliance on 1991 (1) SCC 212, AIR 1990 SC 1031, 2007 (6) SCC 812, 1979 (3) SCC 489, 1994 (6) SCC 651 and 2004 (3) SCC 553, for the proposition that in contractual matters it is difficult to exclude the State actions from the purview of judicial review. Therefore, the action of the State-respondents is not exempt from judicial review and the notice dated 14th September, 2010 which is devoid of reasons, be set aside.
-
Having considered the submissions of the parties, by letter dated 29th April, 2010, the bid of the petitioner was accepted...
To continue reading
Request your trial