- (1.) The petitioner complains of the failure of the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's bid following a tender notice dated July 9, 2013. The present petition is a sequel to W.P. 23150 (W) of 2013 wherein the petitioner complained of the cancellation of the petitioner's contract by the West Bengal Power Development Corporation without affording the petitioner any opportunity to explain the petitioner's version. That extreme step was taken by the Corporation on the basis of complaints said to have received by the Corporation. The order disposing of W.P. 23150 (W) of 2013 on August 5, 2013 observed that though the steps taken by the Corporation against the petitioner should only have been taken after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, since it was evident from the notice of cancellation that the petitioner had apparently submitted false certificates as to the petitioner's credentials, the order of termination was not interfered with; but the petitioner was left with the choice to make a written representation explaining the petitioner's stand on the allegations and the Corporation was required to deal with the same within the time stipulated by the relevant order.
(2.) Upon the written representation being made, the Corporation dealt with the same by a detailed order of August 23, 2013, inter alia, concluding that in view of the finding of false documents having been filed in support of the petitioner's credentials, "you have lost the credibility and the trust required to be imposed in such transaction."
(3.) The petitioner has not challenged the decision and the cancellation of the previous contract stands undisturbed. In the tender process initiated for some other work (since the tender notice was issued prior to the cancellation being issued to the petitioner), the petitioner's bid has not been accepted and it is such action which is questioned in the present proceedings. It is submitted on behalf of the Corporation that in view of the finding against the petitioner in the reasoned decision of the Corporation dated August 23, 2013, the Corporation cannot be faulted for not wanting to do business with the petitioner.;