BISWANATH SOMADDER,J. - (1.) On 14th November, 2011, this Court, for reasons stated in the order passed on that day, refused the prayer of the learned advocate of the petitioners for taking up this matter out of turn.
(2.) Against such refusal, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench by an order dated 18th January, 2012, dismissed the said appeal while observing, inter alia, as follows:- "... Since floating of tender-notice by mentioning it as a re-tender is a consequential action of the decision of the Executive Officer impugned in the first writ application, learned trial Judge was justified to refuse any interim order in second writ application on sound reasoning that so long that order of Executive Officer would remain, which is the subject matter of first writ application, there was no scope to pass any interim order, as prayed for. Hence, in the Appeal Court, we are disturbing the said finding of the learned trial Judge to refuse the interim order. The first writ application is already listed for hearing. The second writ application has vital connection with the first writ application, as such, the second writ application should be heard analogously along with the first writ application to avoid any complexity. Let the present writ application, the order of which is under challenge before us, be heard by the learned trial Judge along with the first writ application being W.P. 14611 (W) of 2011. So far as the merit in the appeal is concerned, we are finding any merit to disturb the impugned order or to pass any order of injunction."
(3.) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the concerned respondent authority had actually called for a fresh tender and the notice inviting re-tender dated 31st October, 2011, is actually nothing but a fresh initiation of the tender process by the respondent authority, which is impermissible.;