MAHIUDDIN SARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging gross irregularity in issuance of work order in favour of the private respondent, Mr. Bilwadal Bhattacharyya, representing the writ petitioner, has submitted that under the West Bengal Financial Rules, tender notice is required to be given due publicity through leading dailies in English, Hindi and Bengali. Since work order was issued without such wide publication, the writ petitioner was deprived of submitting his quotation for execution of the work. Referring to Note I of Rule 47 of the West Bengal Financial Rules, it has been submitted that execution of work, the value whereof is upto Rs.20,000/-, can be given after inviting quotations from four to five reliable firms, manufacturers and direct selling agents. Since the execution of the work, in this case, involves financial expenditure far exceeding Rs.20,000/-, there ought to have been wide circulation of the notice of tender. That procedure not having been followed, the work order, issued in favour of the private respondent, is liable to be cancelled, as has been submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya.

(2.) Referring to the case of Biren Biswas v. Dipti Narayan Biswas & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) CHN 699, Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that in absence of wide publication of the tender notice, the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy, representing the private respondent No. 10, has submitted that since the private respondent has already invested money for execution of the work, the work order issued in his favour should not be cancelled at this stage. Mr. Roy has cited the case of Charan Dass Chadha v. The State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 1980 (3) SLR 702 to impress upon the Court that Government is not entitled to take advantage of its own wrong. It is submitted that the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the alleged irregularity made by the Government officials in issuance of the tender notice.