PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The learned advocate for the petitioners is granted liberty to serve a copy of the petition to the learned Government Pleader. From the affidavit of service filed today, it appears that the principal respondent being the West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.(respondent no.2) has been served. Despite the same it has not appeared. However, the private respondent (respondent No.8)has appeared through learned Advocates after service.
(2.) The matter was heard in stages. At first when the matter was taken up I had passed the order in open court, but then, on the submissions continuing I had made it clear to Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Ghosh that I was not satisfied with the order and the various corrections and changes required by the continuing submissions and I had asked them to come back at 3pm when I would consider the matter further and dictate the final order. At about 3pm or thereabouts when I sat again after recess, the learned Advocate for the petitioner produced a copy of a document in support of his prior submission that his client was still working for the respondent no.2 in respect of the subject work-order whereas Mr. Ghosh had submitted that eighty percent of the personnel required by the respondent no.2 had been replaced, that is to say, Mr. Chatterjee's clients personnel had been replaced. I will come to the effect of the said documents slightly later.
(3.) The allegation contained in the writ petition is that though the writ petitioner was the lowest bidder, the work order was issued to the respondent no.8. The respondent no.2 asked for certain clarification from the writ petitioners and asked the writ petitioners to attend at the office of the respondent no.2 as appears from page 51 of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioner did make some clarification, but it is at best to the effect that the writ petitioner made his bid on his understanding of the conditions of the notice inviting tender, and that is why employees' state insurance component had not been mentioned. It is submitted by the respondent no. 8 that the writ petitioner neither went to meet the respondent no.2 as directed nor has explained the reason as to why he did not do so in the writ petition. In answer to the writ petitioner's submission that no communication of a decision was made by the respondent no.2 to the writ petitioner in respect of the clarification offered by the writ petitioner, the respondent no.2 submits on facts that had the writ petitioner been present then he would have understood the reason why someone who was not the lowest bidder was awarded the work contract; Mr. Ghosh submits that in fact all the papers were gone through by the concerned respondent authority. All others who had attended had given an undertaking as required by the respondent no.2 in respect of Employees' State Insurance. He points out from page 52 that the writ petitioner has in fact clarified that he was perhaps misled by the terms of notice inviting tender and that is why had quoted nothing else. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was the lowest bidder. However, the law does not require that only the lowest bidder would be issued the work order which amounts to distribution of largesse by the State.;