- (1.) THIS writ petition was filed against the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the order dated 24.7.2009 for supply of Vitamin A Syrup on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of supply within the specified time and caused delay due to which the scheme could not be implemented in time.
(2.) IA No. 2831 of 2010 has been for amendment of writ petition challenging the fresh Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.) dated 21.7.2010 issued by the respondents for supply of Vitamin A Syrup. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not at fault, rather the respondents were responsible for delay.
(3.) ON the other hand, State counsel submitted that the petitioner did not supply Vitamin A Syrup in terms of the tender / work order, within the time fixed and petitioner was responsible for the delay and frustrating the scheme under which Vitamin A Syrup was to be supplied. She further submitted that as respondents were facing problem due to delay in implementation of the scheme, they had to take part supply from the petitioner even with delay, but in view of the conduct of petitioner, the respondents were justified in cancelling the order for the balance quantity of 42,790 bottles of Vitamin A Syrup. She also submitted that respondents are justified in issuing fresh N.I.T. for supply of 62,200 bottles of Vitamin A Syrup. She further submitted that after the work order was cancelled, it was also found during the implementation of the programme that the wrappers of the bottles were also of substandard quality. ;