Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Mataji Builders – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal grounds for the petition and initial circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding missed payments due to illness. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. discussion on fairness and procedural standards. (Para 6 , 9 , 16) |
| 4. assessment of the authority's actions and judicial review. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. court's ruling and directives for future compliance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
Judgment :
1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no.3 herein for quashing and/or cancelling the order dated 22.10.2024 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 26.08.2021 as passed by the respondent no.4/authority was dismissed. It is pertinent to mention herein that by the said order dated 26.08.2021, the respondent no.4/authority cancelled and forfeited the earnest money deposited by the writ petitioner in connection with the Auction ID:2021_WB_1818 of Sand Block Raina-II/Maniari/334(P)/A.
21.01.2021 as issued by the office of the respondent no.4 authority. It is submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that in such e-auction process as floated under the West Bengal
Authorities under Article 12 must ensure decisions reflect fairness and rationality, especially regarding individual circumstances such as health issues affecting compliance.
Bidders in a tender process must adhere to the terms and conditions outlined in the auction documents; failure to comply justifies cancellation of bids and forfeiture of earnest money.
Presence of an arbitration clause would oust jurisdiction under Article 226.
The competent authority has the power to grant an extension of time to the highest bidder, and no right accrues to the next highest bidder unless intimated by the authority.
E-auction – Mistake in bid – While undertaking exercise of judicial review of matters relating to tenders, court has to strike a fair balance between interests of Government, which is always expected....
Under the Enforcement Rules, a period of 15 days is prescribed for payment of the balance sale consideration. Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules after its amendment with effect from mandated that any....
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The court affirmed that auction terms must provide legal certainty, and found no ambiguity in the terms of the e-auction for mining leases, thus upholding the auction process.
A bidder cannot claim EMD refund due to an inadvertent error in a bid amount when sufficient safeguards exist in the bidding process to prevent such mistakes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
