Calcutta High Court
Madho Das Mundhra vs Railtel Corporation Of India & Anr on 5 August, 2021
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
A.P.O.T. No. 98 of 2021
IA No:GA/1/2021
Madho Das Mundhra
Versus
Railtel Corporation of India & Anr.
-And-
A.P.O.T. No. 99 of 2021
IA No:GA/1/2021
Madho Das Mundhra
Versus
Railtel Corporation of India & Anr.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY
-And-
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBHASIS DASGUPTA
Date : 5th August, 2021.
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee with Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta,
Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee & Mr. Sourabh Prasad, Advs.
... for Appellant.
Mr. Vikas Baisya with Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Advs.
... for Respondents
The appeal being APOT No.98 of 2021 has been preferred by the
appellant/writ petitioner challenging an order dated 20th October, 2020
passed in a writ petition being WPO No.281/2020. The said writ petition
was preferred challenging inter alia a tender process initiated by a Notice
Inviting Tender (in short, NIT) dated 26th August, 2020. In the same
initially an order was passed on 25th September, 2020 setting aside a reply
given by the respondents on 4th September, 2020 to the appellant's
application for clarification dated 3rd September, 2020 and directing the
respondents to exhaustively reply to the appellant's application for
clarification. Pursuant to such direction the respondents replied by a letter
dated 7th October, 2020. Aggrieved by the said reply, the appellant
preferred an application in which the order dated 20th October, 2020 was
passed.
The appeal being APOT No.99 of 2021 has been preferred challenging
an order dated 18th June, 2021 passed in the same writ petition on an
application preferred by the appellant inter alia praying for quashing the
opening and evaluation of the financial bids but such prayer was refused.
It appears that there is a delay in preferring the appeal being APOT
No.98 of 2021. However, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Special
Bench of this Court and since we have invited the learned advocates to
advance their arguments on merit, the delay stands condoned.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant in both the appeals
argues that the order impugned in the appeal being APOT No.98 of 2021
was passed without considering the observations made in an earlier order
passed by a Coordinate Bench on 25th September, 2020. The respondents
failed to provide a detailed clarification to the appellant's representation
dated 3rd September, 2020. In spite of noting such infirmity, the learned
Judge did not interfere and the order being cryptic in nature is not
sustainable.
He submits that the clarification given by the respondents on 7th
October, 2020 does not constitute sufficient compliance of the order
passed by the Coordinate Bench earlier on 25th September, 2020.
According to him, while passing the order impugned in the appeal
being APOT No. 99 of 2021, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate
that the appellant was prevented from submitting any bid since the
clarifications sought for were not provided by the respondents.
Mr. Baisya, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits
that the tender pertains to sectional railway traffic management all over
India and is a public project. The appellant did not even participate in the
said tender process and preferred the writ petition with the sole intent to
stall the same. There is no infirmity in the orders impugned in the present
appeals and as such no interference is called for, moreso when work orders
had already been issued. In support of his argument, Mr. Baisya placed
reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine Calcutta 2213 (Subir Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).
A perusal of the order dated 20th October, 2020 impugned in the
appeal being APOT No.98 of 2021 reveals that the issues agitated by the
appellant were duly considered. Considering the facts of the case, the
learned Judge directed the parties to exchange their affidavits and also
observed that 'any decision of the respondent no.2 to finalise the tender in
favour of any party shall abide by the result of the writ petition'.
In view of such protection as conferred by the order dated 20th
October, 2020 and since there had been no change in the circumstances,
the learned Judge by an order dated 18th June, 2021 rightly did not
interfere in the tendering process.
Upon dealing with all the factual issues and considering the
arguments as advanced, the learned Single Judge passed reasoned orders
refusing the interim reliefs, as prayed for by the appellant, and we do not
find any error in the same. The orders impugned in the above appeals also
do not suffer from any patent infirmity warranting interference.
Accordingly, the appeals being APOT No.98 of 2021 and APOT No.99 of
2021 are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J.) (TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.)
K. Banerjee
A.R. [C.R.]
