DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) A tender process is under challenge at the behest of the writ petitioner.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the tender was done without requisite advertisement in respect thereof. Moreover, the petitioner and the intending tenderer were not allowed to obtain the tender papers. He draws the attention of the Court to a complaint made by the petitioner on July 20, 2018 and the directions issued by the Sub-divisional Officer dated July 23, 2018 with regard thereto. He submits that, the tender process stands vitiated.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, the writ petitioner approached the Writ Court on two previous occasions. He draws the attention of the Court to the order dated July 2, 2018 passed in W.P. No. 9908 (W) of 2018 (Birendra Nath Dey v. District Magistrate, Murshidabad and Ors.). He submits that, the advertisement for the subject tender was made immediately upon publication of the notice of the tender. The notice-inviting tender is dated July 5, 2018 and the requisite advertisement was published subsequent thereto, commencing from July 6, 2018. He submits that, a similar grievance with regard to the petitioner not being made available the tender papers was raised by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 9908 (W) of 2018. The same was not accepted by the Court. In the present case, five persons participated in the tender. The tender has since been processed and the District Magistrate has given approval for issuance of the contract. The authorities have not issued the contract since the writ petition is pending. He submits that, the present writ petition is a process by which, the petitioner as the existing contractor, is trying to elongate his period of contract.;