- (1.) Mr Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner submits that the authority concerned has neither rejected nor allowed the petitioner's request for supply of tender papers. Correctness of the submission is disputed by Mr Sengupta. He has said that decision of the authority rejecting the petitioner's request for tender paper was sought to be served on the petitioner by hand, and that when the petitioner refused to receive the decision, it was sent to the petitioner by post. Mr Chatterjee has disputed the correctness of this submission.
(2.) I do not find any reason to entertain the WP under art.226 for deciding who is telling the truth. I think it will be appropriate to dispose of the WP directing the authority concerned to supply a copy of the decision to advocate for the petitioner and also to send a copy thereof to the petitioner by Fax, if possible. In view of urgency leave as prayed for has been granted to move the WP as an unlisted motion. It is disposed of ordering as follows.
(3.) By tomorrow the authority deciding not to supply tender papers shall supply a copy of the decision to advocate for the petitioner and shall also send a copy thereof to the petitioner by Fax, if number is supplied to Mr Sengupta at once. No Costs.;