RAFIK MIYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 EAST COAST RAILWAY & ANR; K SUREKHA v. MAHADEV APPA RAO & ORS; MAHADEV APPA RAO & ORS, 2010 AIR(SC) 2794

(3.) 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 NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED v. HARIBOX SWALRAM, 2004 9 SCC 786