Assadullah Biswas and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors

Assadullah Biswas and anr. vs The State of West Bengal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Appellate Decided Nov 25, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912527

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/912527
Court: Kolkata Appellate High Court
Judge: Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
Decided On: Nov 25, 2010
Case Number: A.S.T. No.1736 of 2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Sub-Heading 1904.10 or 2108.00: [S.H.Kapadia & Aftab Alam,JJ] Cheetos Masala Balls, Cheetos Cheese Puff and Cheetos X & O- Classification - Held, Rule of interpretation is if a specific entry covers a product then one need not go into residuary heading. Since subject product made from cereals in grounded form, ther...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Assadullah Biswas and anr.

Advocate Mr Abhijit Chakrabortty; Mr Amarendra Chakrabortty, Advs

Respondent

The State of West Bengal and ors.

Advocate Mr M.M. Das; Mr Mrinal Kanti Sardar, Advs

Excerpt

sub-heading 1904.10 or 2108.00: [s.h.kapadia & aftab alam,jj] cheetos masala balls, cheetos cheese puff and cheetos x & o- classification - held, rule of interpretation is if a specific entry covers a product then one need not go into residuary heading. since subject product made from cereals in grounded form, therefore not falling in sub-heading 19.04. hence, covered by residuary entry sub-heading 2108. 1. in view of urgency counsel has prayed for leave to move this art.226 petition as an unlisted motion. i am of the view that it will be appropriate to allow the prayer. 2. counsel submits that the petitioners intending to participate in the tender process are unable to participate for the reason that though they applied for the tender papers, the authority did not issue them tender papers. 3. from the document at p.38 it appears that the last date for issue of tender papers was november 22, 2010; for dropping tenders was november 24, 2010; for opening tender box was november 24, 2010; and the date for opening the tenders is november 26, 2010. 4. it is evident that the petitioners have approached the writ court after the date for opening the tender box. hence i am of the view that today there is no question of directing the authority concerned to examine the question of supplying the petitioners tender papers so that they may tender for the work. 5. it is also to be noted that counsel for the respondents has submitted that on november 15, 2010 the petitioners appeared before the screening committee before which they clearly admitted in writing that they did not have the requisite infrastructure for executing the work. according to the terms and conditions of the tender notice an intending tenderer is entitled to tender papers only if he satisfies the requirement of infrastructure. 6. i am, therefore, of the view that the authority refusing to give the petitioners tender papers on the grounds that they are not eligible to participate in the process did not commit any wrong. 7. for these reasons, the petition is dismissed. the department is directed to give permanent case number at once. no costs. certified xerox.

Full Judgment

1. In view of urgency counsel has prayed for leave to move this art.226 petition as an unlisted motion. I am of the view that it will be appropriate to allow the prayer.

2. Counsel submits that the petitioners intending to participate in the tender process are unable to participate for the reason that though they applied for the tender papers, the authority did not issue them tender papers.

3. From the document at p.38 it appears that the last date for issue of tender papers was November 22, 2010; for dropping tenders was November 24, 2010; for opening tender box was November 24, 2010; and the date for opening the tenders is November 26, 2010.

4. It is evident that the petitioners have approached the Writ Court after the date for opening the tender box. Hence I am of the view that today there is no question of directing the authority concerned to examine the question of supplying the petitioners tender papers so that they may tender for the work.

5. It is also to be noted that counsel for the respondents has submitted that on November 15, 2010 the petitioners appeared before the screening committee before which they clearly admitted in writing that they did not have the requisite infrastructure for executing the work. According to the terms and conditions of the tender notice an intending tenderer is entitled to tender papers only if he satisfies the requirement of infrastructure.

6. I am, therefore, of the view that the authority refusing to give the petitioners tender papers on the grounds that they are not eligible to participate in the process did not commit any wrong.

7. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. The department is directed to give permanent case number at once. No costs. Certified xerox.

Same Court & Year Kolkata Appellate · 2010 Same Parties Assadullah Biswas and anr. vs The State of West Bengal and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.

Land Acquisition