Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is arising out of an order of refusal by the learned Single Judge to pass an ad interim order in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of a public tender issued on 24th November, 2010 for procurement and related services to be provided by UNOPS to the West Bengal Medical Services Corporation Ltd. THE learned Single Judge refused to pass any ad interim order to stay the operation and effect of the letter dated 5th of April, 2011 by which United Nations Office for Project Services (hereinafter referred to "UNOPS") have rejected the bid from Narayan Industries regarding ITB Ref: UNOPS/IPO/WPMSC/EQUIP/03/2010.
(2.) UNOPS by the said communication rejected the said bid on the ground that M/s. Narayan Industries suffers from "conflict of interest" since it has submitted more than one bid in the bidding process in relation to equipments covered under the same Schedules being Schedule 7,14 and 21 and hence became ineligible in terms of Clause 4.2(ii) of the instructions to bidders. On 18th May, 2011, the appeal was admitted, however, in view of the fact that purchase orders have been issued in favour of the Respondent No.9 and the said medical equipments are urgently required by the Chief Medical Officer, Darjelling District, the Respondent No.9 was permitted to supply initially 1000 Dopplers to the Respondent No.7. Subsequently by an order dated 5th July, 2011 we have permitted supply of a further 1000 Dopplers to the authorities concerned in view of the urgent requirement of such equipments. During the pendency of the appeal two applications were filed on behalf of the appellant to bring on record further materials. We permitted filing of such application and after completion of affidavits, the main writ petition was taken up for consideration along with the applications filed on behalf of the appellant.
(3.) AT the commencement of hearing, the learned Counsels representing the Respondent No.7 & 9 raised objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The principal ground is that the Respondent No.8, namely, United Nations Office for Project Services (hereinafter referred to "UNOPS") enjoys immunity. It has been argued that the principal relief is against the order passed by the General Counsel, UNOPS being , Annexure 11 to the writ petition which cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. It was further argued that the disputes relate to an award of a contract by the Respondent No.8, UNOPS, India Operation Centre and any dispute arising out of the same has to be resolved in accordance with the mechanism as provided in the UNOPS procurement manual, Rev.4,01 September, 2010.;