- (1.) WP No. 1846 (W) of 2009 is the earlier petition and the petitioners seek leave to withdraw the same and proceed with the later petition on the ground that subsequent events have overtaken the earlier petition. WP No. 1846 (W) of 2009 is dismissed without any order as to costs and the petitioners are permitted to proceed with WP No. 2344 (W) of 2009.
(2.) CAN No. 1350 of 2009 is an application for the applicant to be impleaded in WP No. 2344 (W) of 2009. The applicant proposes to come on board to resist the reliefs claimed in the petition. The petitioner company was engaged by the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (the corporation) for removal of fly ash from the Kolaghat Thermal Power Station of the corporation. The letter of intent of December 19, 2005 specified that the petitioner company was to remove 29,000 MT of fly ash per month with a provision for variation on either side to the extent of 25 per cent. The third clause of the letter of intent provided as follows: "3) Time of completion: Two (2) calendar year since 1. 1. 06 with provision for further extension for a period of one more year depending upon satisfactory performance by you within which time between 1. 1. 06 till execution of formal MOU at future course of time is to be considered as STABILISATION PERIOD to facilitate instant execution of work. "
(3.) THE petitioners say that the clause implied that the period of two years with an additional period of a further year would begin to run after the formal execution of a memorandum of understanding. The petitioners say that a draft memorandum was forwarded by the corporation to the petitioner company which was duly executed on behalf of the company and returned to the corporation, but the corporation has chosen to not complete the execution of the document. The petitioners say that in such view of the matter and since it is admitted that the memorandum of understanding has not yet been executed the petitioner company's tenure continues and there is no question of any new invitation being issued for fresh offers for another period. The petitioners assail the notice dated January 27, 2009 and say that the job description therein of "procuring of balance quantity of coal ash " would convey the impression that the offers being invited would be for fly ash beyond the monthly quantum of 29,000 MT reserved for the petitioner company. The petitioners say that if such is the case, they would have no grievance and on a clarification to such effect being offered by the corporation, the petitioners would not pursue these proceedings. The petitioners, however, say that the relevant clause is somewhat ambiguous and it is the petitioners' apprehension that without the corporation clarifying that the petitioners' monthly quantum was to be left untouched, there is room for the corporation to take steps to the detriment of the petitioner company.;