PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Mr. Susovan Sengupta, learned Senior Government advocate had appeared. On the earlier occasion he was requested to take instruction. Today at 2 p.m. he reminded that the matter was taken up immediately after the "For Orders", the matter fixed as item no.9. Accordingly, I have taken up the matter immediately after the fixed matter under the heading "For Orders". His learned junior Mr. Subir Pal submits the instructions. From the instructions it appears as follows: "One sand mining block being no. MSB 40 over plot no. 1289(P) under mouza-Manidaha, J.L. NO. 110 within Kotwali P. S. was floated for a eauction vide auction ID 2017_DMPM_65. The declaration of highest successful bidder was made as per approval of the District Committee for competitive bidding in favour of Tapas Samanta, S/o- Manik Samanta, residing at-Chithalbani, P.O.-Khelseuli, paschim Medinipur PIN 721513. As a follow up, correspondence was made with the successful bidder of payment of 1/3rd of bid amount within 15 days from the receiving of letter (Annexure-A). As the successful bidder did pay the bid amount in due time so as per resolution dated 04.07.2017, another reminder letter was sent to the said successful bidder vide memo no. 5080(7)/I-MM/12/(DC)MSB40/2016 dated 18.08.2017 regarding payment of bid amount against the said block No. MSB 40. On the basis of that the petitioner paid 1/3rd of bid amount i.e. Rs. 17063165/- vide D.C.R. No. 1077017/9 dated 14.09.2017 (Annexure- B). After payment of 1/3rd of bid amount Letter of Intent was also issued in favour of the petitioner against MSB40 on 15.09.2017 by the District Magistrate and Chairman, District Committee for Competitive Bidding, Paschim Medinipur (Annexure-C). As directed in the said Letter of Intent, petitioner submitted mine plan before the authority concerned and thereafter got Environmental Clearance for the proposed sand mining block. Now another letter was issued to the petitioner vide Memo 6370/IMM/12/(DC)/MSB40/2016 dated 25.10.2017 regarding payment of rest bid amount within 15 days positively (Annexure-D). Now against non-payment of rest bid amount and according to the resolution taken by District Committee for Competitive Bidding on 04.07.2017 a hearing date was fixed on 14.11.2017 at the chamber of the undersigned (Annexure-E). Now the petitioner prayed some time for submission of rest bid amount against letter dated 25.10.2017, so the another date of hearing fixed on 11.12.2017 at the chamber of the undersigned for depositing rest bid amount of MSB40 (Annexure-F). But the petitioner again remain absent. Then a next date of hearing fixed on 28.02.2018 at the chamber of District Magistrate and Chairman, District Committee for Competitive Bidding, Pasachim Medinipur (Annexure-G) regarding the payment of rest bid amount for MSB40 with mentioning that further more no request of time extension will be considered in this connection and inaction from the part of the petitioner will be presumed that he is interested for execution of deeds and for that recommendation for failure of already deposited amount and invitation for fresh e-auction will be made without making any further correspondence."
(2.) Even though the writ petitioner contends two different reasons why the writ petitioner feels that he made bid at an 'e-auction' for a "pigi-in-a-poke" being first the site in question was advertised by way of latitude, longitude and global positioning system coordinates of which physical inspection was completed when the riverbed was flooded during the monsoon and further case of this writ petition is that the site in question on the riverbed fall within the jurisdiction of the Odisha Government, which the State of West Bengal was competent to give a lease even for the purpose of sand quarrying, the writ petitioner is on a strong wicket.
(3.) The instructions handed up today by Mr. Sengupta does reflect any contradiction on this point. On the contrary, Mr. Sengupta points out from the e-tender documents starting from page 21 of the writ petition that in terms of Clause VI and its sub clauses, the writ petitioner had the right to take physical inspection between October 10 and October 26, 2017. The bid was submitted by the writ petitioner on November 1, 2018 and earnest money had been deposited by him on October 24, 2016. If he had taken inspection then in such case, he could have also taken the point that the plot could be identified. In stead after being the successful bidder, now in order to pay the lease consideration or even the first installment he has taken the above points. While the instructions of Mr. Sengupta are kept on record, it appears that even though the contemporaneous representation at page 35 of the writ petition does speak of the site being incapable of being identified due to the monsoons, this has been taken in the subsequent representation made by the lawyer and the client at page 40-41 of the writ petition, besides the point of the land, falling the jurisdiction of the government of Odisha, has been taken contemporaneously by the petitioner at page 35 as also at page 40-41 in the representation made to the authorities. Both of these are annexed to the writ petition. When Mr. Sengupta was asked to take instructions, naturally his client had an opportunity to go through the enclosures. Despite the aforesaid nothing has been mentioned in the written instructions.;