A party cannot be allowed to take benefit by its own wrong.

BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.

1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 8311 (W) of 2018 (Jitendra Singh vs. Chandernagore Municipal Corporation & Anr.).

3. For convenience, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is reproduced here in below in its entirety:-

“Supplementary affidavit filed in Court be taken on record.

The petitioner complains that, as a bidder, it was logged out from the bid process over a given period of time. In support of such contention, documents are relied upon by the petitioner obtained from the National Informatics Centre (in short ‘NIC’) who provided the platform for the electronic bidding process.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to the documents supplied by NIC, as annexed in the supplementary affidavit. He draws the attention of the Court to the observations made in such documents. He submits that, the logg [sic; read, log] in identity of the petitioner was logged out from 11.45 a.m. till 12.00 noon by which time the bid process was over.

Learned advocate appearing for the Municipality submits that, due to the pendency of the writ petition, the tender has not been finalized. He draws the attention of the Court to the user log details on June 8, 2018 where, the petitioner was trying to log into another bidder’s bid process and was unsuccessful; having done so the petitioner was blocked from participating in the tender process any further.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and materials made available on record.

The supplementary affidavit discloses the user log details of the bid process, as provided by NIC to the petitioner. It appears from such documents that, the petitioner had participated in the bid process under the name and style of jitendra76@c.rg. Such identity of the petitioner was blocked for the period from 10.53 a.m. till 11.49 a.m. It also appears that, there was an unsuccessful attempt to log in by the petitioner from a different IP address being 45.124.6.252 at 11.50 a.m. Such IP address is of the successful bidder. It is in such context that, the petitioner was blocked from participating in the tender process any further.

In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit by its own wrong. No interference is called for in the present writ petition.

W.P. No.8311 (W) of 2018 is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. The unsuccessful bidder, i.e., the writ petitioner, has now approached this Court of Appeal.

5. The principal allegation of the writ petitioner being logged out, which resulted in his inability to participate in the auction process, has been squarely dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2018.

6. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities of reasoning or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order does not reveal any such palpable infirmity or perversity. The judgment is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.

7. In such circumstances, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.

8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.