BIREN BISWAS Vs. DIPTI NARAYAN BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEHATTA-LL, Panchayat Samity in the District of Nadia invited tenders from the intending bidders in a public auction for leasing out ferry service for the period August 15, 2008 to April 14, 2010. Notice inviting tender was published on August 5, 2008. The respondent No. 1 participated in the tender process along with other intending bidders and became successful in obtaining lease at for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs payable to the panchayat Samity as license fee for such lease. The respondent No. 1 however, was not in a position to deposit the money within the stipulated period. Hence, the process was cancelled. However, in course of hearing before us Mr. Sumitro Dasgupta learned Counsel appearing for the State-respondents contended that the next highest offerer was also not in a position to deposit the sum. Fact remains, the process was cancelled.

(2.) ONE Zillar Rahaman filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 16860 (W)of 2008 inter alia praying for extension of his lease as he had been holding the lease for the earlier period. He obtained an order of injunction restraining his eviction. The respondent contended that he was keeping an eye over the matter as he was eager to participate in the next tender process. On September 17, 2008 Zillar was evicted and appellant was given possession. The respondent No. 1 came to know that a surreptitious tender process was had behind his back where the appellant was successful in obtaining a lease for a sum of Rs. 5. 30 lakhs. Pertinent to note, the reserve price was fixed for Rs. 4. 7 lakhs. He came to know from zillar that Zillar was dispossessed as interim protection granted to him was not extended by the learned Single Judge in his writ proceeding.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition challenging the second tender process principally on the ground that it was not conducted by giving wide publicity. The respondent No. 1 contended that he did not see any notice hung up on the notice board of the Panchayat Samity and as such he was prevented from sufficient cause in participating in the said tender process. The writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge on december, 23 of 2008. His Lordship held that the auction notice was not properly published. His Lordship quashed the entire process.