JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS,J. - (1.) Mr. Basu appearing for the petitioners submits that the three petitioners in this WP under Article 226 dated December 27, 2011 are questioning the reasonableness and validity of the rates mentioned in para. 2 (at p.224) of a memo dated August 2, 2011 and condition 3(g) of the special terms and conditions of the terms and conditions for cooked diet tender dated August 2011 (at p.227) both issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, M.S. Branch, Government of West Bengal.
(2.) Citing urgency the WP was moved before the vacation bench on December 27, 2011, when the following order was passed : "This application is filed challenging the impugned tender process initiated by the various hospital authorities for supply cooked diet to the indoor patients of the said hospitals. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were involved in the process of supplying cooked diet to the indoor patients of some of the hospitals, but has submitted any tender as they have challenged the entire process which are arbitrary and illegal. He, at the same time, submits that the service upon the respondents may be dispensed with. None appears to represent the opposite parties, especially State. The tender process initiated by the various hospital authorities for supply of cooked diet to the indoor patients of the said hospitals may be completed and kept in a sealed cover for a period of ten days from date and the matter be listed seven days hence before the appropriate bench. In the meantime, copy of the writ application along with annexures may be served upon the opposite parties and the affidavit of service be filed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties."
(3.) Mr. Basu while praying for extension of the interim order dated December 27, 2011 has submitted as follows. If condition 3(g) of the special terms and conditions of the terms and conditions for cooked diet tender in question is applied, then it would be impracticable for the petitioners to tender maintaining the rates mentioned in the memo dated August 2, 2011. Even when no condition like condition 3(g) was there, this Court held that the rates almost identical to the ones mentioned in the memo dated August 2, 2011 were unreasonable. This Court in a case filed in 2007 passed an interim order dated March 29, 2007 considering almost an identical situation; and after suffering the interim order the State Government constituted a committee for determining the rates. The rates now determined by the committee still suffer from impracticability.;