JAGANNATH ENTERPRISE Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The Kolkata Municipal Corporation obtained directions to file affidavit on July 30, 2018. Initially a period of two weeks was granted. Thereafter, on September 5, 2018 a further extension of four weeks was obtained. Ultimately the affidavit-in-opposition was affirmed without leave on December 19, 2018. A copy was served on the petitioner who did not object to it but accepted such service of an affidavit affirmed outside time and also used affidavit-in-reply thereto whose copy has been served on the respondents. Therefore, the parties have by their own conduct and act purported to extend the time granted by this Court which, to my mind, is not correct procedure. The respondent Corporation is granted leave to file the affidavit-in-opposition and the delay in affirming the same is condoned.

(2.) I am told that already affidavits-in-opposition and reply have been filed in the earlier round of this petition. Earlier round concluded by dismissal of the writ petition on the sole ground that the Corporation as a necessary party had not been arrayed with the defendant with liberty to file afresh. This is the fresh writ petition where the Corporation has been arrayed. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate submits that copies of the affidavits-in-opposition and reply used in the earlier round are already on record. Even though the Corporation was not a party in the earlier round, it cannot change its stand today. Therefore, the Respondent no.1 cannot take any change stand contrary thereto today.

(3.) In this matter, the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an act of the respondent authorities by which as far back as on June 3, 2015 a firm contract was entered into for supply of medicines by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 through its Superintendent, Central Medical Stores at a certain price which when time for payment arose was not adhered to by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has made out a case that in an audit observation dated October 15, 2015, these items were found to have been ordered at an enhanced price which was higher than the "approved government rates". No document has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition used in the earlier round in support of this allegation.