Tapabrata Chakraborty J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 10th February, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1399 (W) of 2017. As the parties have agreed to advance their arguments on the basis of the records which were placed before the learned Single Judge, the appeal is taken up for final hearing without calling for affidavits.
(2.) The West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the said Board) invited e-tenders for infrastructure development by renovation of agricultural firms and research station at different places in the district of Burdwan. The D.M.P. Nirman Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the firm) participated in eight tenders out of which five were cancelled and in the remaining three tenders the firm was found non responsive/disqualified. Aggrieved thereby, the firm preferred the writ petition in which initially an interim order was passed on 20th January, 2017 directing that none of the respondents will take any steps in terms of the work orders in any manner whatsoever. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard and dismissed by the order dated 10th February, 2017.
(3.) Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the firm submits that in terms of the check list annexed to the notice inviting e-tender, the firm uploaded all the documents but surprisingly the Project Engineer of the said Board issued three letters on 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 relating to the respective three tenders stating that the firm had been "found non responsive for non availability of testimonial and document regarding engagement of Civil Engineer". In the said letters it was also stated that "agencies are allowed to response (if any by online/offline) against evaluation of bid, within 24 hours from the time of issue of Technical Evaluation report". Immediately thereafter the firm replied to the said letters by submitting three representations on 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 in respect of the three tenders asking the respondent no.4 to review its decision since the firm had already furnished the qualification information. The said representations were, however, not considered and the private respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 were illegally issued work orders in the respective three tenders.;