Ashok S. Soni and ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1166754
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnOct-29-2014
JudgeBench
AppellantAshok S. Soni and ors.
RespondentKolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Excerpt:
apot594of 2014 g.a.3284 of 2014 g.a.3285 of 2014 w.p.680 of 2014 in the high court at calcutta civil appellate jurisdiction original side ashok s. soni & ors.versus kolkata municipal corporation & ors.before: the hon'ble chief justice mrs.manjula chellur the hon'ble justice arijit banerjee date : 29th october, 2014. for the appellants : mr.arunabha ghosh, sr.advocate with mr.sourav mondal, advocate for the respondents : mr.alok kumar ghosh with ms.piyali sengupta, advocates the court : for the reasons set out in the application for condonation of delay, delay of 37 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. the appellant-writ petitioners who were somewhat successful before learned single judge are before us. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants having submitted tender, they may be permitted to take part in the tender process to be held today at 12 o’clock (29-10-2014) but the appeal has to be kept pending 2 for disposal on merits. having regard to the above submissions, we have gone through the impugned order wherein the appellants were permitted to take part in the tender process as stated above along with other eleven offerers thereby the respondent-corporation will have the benefit of having highest price to be quoted “for securing rights in branding advertisements on street light pole kiosks” in respect of some streets. as a matter of fact, the writ petitioners-appellants approached learned single judge contending that there was defect in the advertisement calling for tenders as there was no stipulation in advertisement for furnishing earnest money. however, the stand of the corporation was that by corrigendum the defect was rectified which was published in the notice board of the corporation and the requirement of earnest money was also specified in the advertisement published in the newspapers.however, the learned judge after hearing both parties and keeping in view the submission of the corporation that they were not intending to proceed with the existing tender but were intending to call a new tender, opined that an auction may be conducted amongst the eleven offerers including the writ petitioners so that the highest price at that point of time can be secured by the corporation. this 3 direction of the learned judge is under challenge. as a matter of fact, without touching upon the right or wrong on the part of the appellants, learned judge gave concession to the appellants herein to participate again in the auction to be held on or before 31-10-2014 which happens to be at 12 o’clock today. we see no prejudice as such being caused to the appellant-petitioners in any manner. in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that nothing remains for us to consider so far as merits of the case. then, coming to the notice or intimation being served upon the appellant- petitioners.according to the appellants themselves, it was informed to them in the evening of 28-10-2014 that auction is to be held at 12 noon today. we are of the opinion that sufficient time was granted to the appellants to participate in the tender process as directed by learned single judge. in that view of the matter, nothing remains for consideration. accordingly, both the appeal and the application are dismissed. ( manjula chellur, c.j.(arijit banerjee, j.) rsg/gh
Judgment:

APOT594of 2014 G.A.3284 of 2014 G.A.3285 of 2014 W.P.680 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side ASHOK S.

SONI & ORS.Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 29th October, 2014.

For the Appellants : Mr.Arunabha Ghosh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sourav Mondal, Advocate For the respondents : Mr.Alok Kumar Ghosh with Ms.Piyali Sengupta, Advocates THE COURT : For the reasons set out in the application for condonation of delay, delay of 37 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

The appellant-writ petitioners who were somewhat successful before learned single Judge are before us.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants having submitted tender, they may be permitted to take part in the tender process to be held today at 12 O’clock (29-10-2014) but the appeal has to be kept pending 2 for disposal on merits.

Having regard to the above submissions, we have gone through the impugned order wherein the appellants were permitted to take part in the tender process as stated above along with other eleven offerers thereby the respondent-Corporation will have the benefit of having highest price to be quoted “for securing rights in branding advertisements on street light pole kiosks” in respect of some streets.

As a matter of fact, the writ petitioners-appellants approached learned single Judge contending that there was defect in the advertisement calling for tenders as there was no stipulation in advertisement for furnishing earnest money.

However, the stand of the Corporation was that by Corrigendum the defect was rectified which was published in the Notice Board of the Corporation and the requirement of earnest money was also specified in the advertisement published in the newspapeRs.However, the learned Judge after hearing both parties and keeping in view the submission of the Corporation that they were not intending to proceed with the existing tender but were intending to call a new tender, opined that an auction may be conducted amongst the eleven offerers including the writ petitioners so that the highest price at that point of time can be secured by the Corporation.

This 3 direction of the learned Judge is under challenge.

As a matter of fact, without touching upon the right or wrong on the part of the appellants, learned Judge gave concession to the appellants herein to participate again in the auction to be held on or before 31-10-2014 which happens to be at 12 O’clock today.

We see no prejudice as such being caused to the appellant-petitioners in any manner.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that nothing remains for us to consider so far as merits of the case.

Then, coming to the notice or intimation being served upon the appellant- petitioneRs.according to the appellants themselves, it was informed to them in the evening of 28-10-2014 that auction is to be held at 12 noon today.

We are of the opinion that sufficient time was granted to the appellants to participate in the tender process as directed by learned single Judge.

In that view of the matter, nothing remains for consideration.

Accordingly, both the appeal and the application are dismissed.

( MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J.(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) Rsg/GH