A certificate issued by authorities “To Whom It May Concern” is obviously a general certificate addressed to the world at large and speaks for itself.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:-

1. The petitioner no. 1-company deals with bio-remediation and biomining of municipal and legacy waste. The petitioner no. 2 is its director.

2. The petitioner no. 1 participated in a tender floated by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) and turned out successful. Consequently, the petitioner no. 1 was awarded work contracts in respect of several districts, all dated February 17, 2021. The work contracts pertain to bio-mining of legacy waste and land-reclamation of dumpsites utilizing scientific method. The petitioner no. 1 is still working under the said contracts.

3. After performing the work for some time, on September 6, 2021, a certificate was issued by the Chief Engineer, Sewerage, Drainage and Solid Waste Management Sector, KMDA. The said document certified, inter alia, that the petitioner no. 1 had successfully completed bioremediation of legacy waste quantity of 6.10 Lakh Metric Tons “up to 31.07.2021” at the sites across West Bengal, as mentioned therein. It was further stated that the certificate-issuing authority was satisfied with the performance of the petitioner no. 1 “so far”.

4. However, on June 23, 2023, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why the said certificate would not be cancelled.

5. The petitioners gave a written reply to the show-cause on June 26, 2023.

6. However, the respondents, vide communication dated July 27, 2023, revoked the certificate and requested the petitioners to return the original certificate within seven days.

7. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present challenge.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that valuable rights flowing from the certificate have accrued in favour of the petitioners and the respondents cannot, unilaterally, withdraw such rights. The respondents, it is argued, are also barred by the principle of Estoppel.

9. It is contended that the grounds cited in the show cause notice are not valid in law. Moreover, the impugned cancellation of the certificate is devoid of reasons. In such context, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cites Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers, reported at (2010) 4 SCC 785.

10. Learned counsel next argues that the respondents themselves issued the credential certificate upon completion of a substantial portion of the work by the petitioners in respect of several districts. Even now, the respondents do not dispute the veracity of the facts stated in the certificate. Hence, the impugned cancellation is bad in law and ought to be set aside.

11. It is alleged that the impugned order is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities contends that the petitioners do not have any statutory or Constitutional right to have a certificate issued in their favour. Although the respondents initially issued the certificate-in-dispute, the same was being misused by the petitioners. Learned counsel denies that the certificate was a “completion” certificate or a “credential” certificate. However, the petitioners have been rampantly using the said certificate as credential/completion certificate for participating in other tenders before several authorities in different states.

13. It is contended that the petitioners, on the basis of the certificate, have been claiming around that the same was a credential certificate and should be treated as proof of completion of work by the petitioners under the tender floated by the present respondents.

14. Queries were raised by such other tendering authorities in several states as to the credibility of the said certificate issued by the respondents, for which the latter”s goodwill is suffering.

15. For example, it is submitted, tendering authorities from Cuttack sought to clarify doubts regarding the certificate, which was produced by the petitioners in a tender floated by the sa