02.08.2025 Sl. No.17 Ct. No.42 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 11465 of 2025 Sk. Abul Hosen Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Tapash Kr. Mondal Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu … for the petitioner Mr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharyya …for the respondent-

Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad.

Mr. Krishnapada Pal Mr. Kousik Karmakar … for the respondent no.6 Affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner are taken on record.

On the prayer of the learned Advocate for the petitioner leave is granted to correct the name of the respondent no.6.

By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities particularly, respondent nos.2 to 5 to allow the petitioner to deposit the entire bid amount in terms of the e-Auction notification dated 20^th February, 2025.

The petitioner contends that he participated in the bid in respect of e-Auction notification being no.17/e- Auction/Ferry/PMZP/2025 dated 20^th February, 2025 pertaining to Talpati Kakdwip via Kachuberia Ferry Ghat.

The petitioner was the second highest bidder. The first highest bidder is the respondent no.6. namely, One Nine Trading and Contracting Establishment. The respondent no.6 failed to deposit the entire bid amount within 10 days as stipulated in the notice inviting the bid. The petitioner, being the second highest bidder, ought to have given an opportunity to deposit the entire bid amount. However, respondent, Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad chose to give opportunity to the respondent no.6 to for deposit of the bid amount by way of instalment, which is impermissible as per clauses of the notification. Challenging such action of the Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad, respondent nos.2 to

5, the present writ petition has been filed.

Mr. Tapash Kr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that as per the notification dated 20th February, 2025, annexure P1 under “gurutyapurna nirdeshabali’, the highest bidder has to deposit the entire bid amount within 10 days, failing which the second highest bidder will be given opportunity. He further indicates that the bid amount should not be allowed to be deposited by way of instalment. The process adopted by the Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad asking the highest bidder i.e. respondent no.6 to deposit remaining amount of Rs.28,05,000/- by way of instalment is impermissible. He informs the Court that the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire bid amount within the stipulated period, if such liberty is given to the petitioner.

On the contrary, Mr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5, Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad conceding that the respondent no.6 failed to deposit the remaining amount within the stipulated period, submits that the practice of providing instalment to the lessee to deposit the bid amount is in vogue since long and the petitioner, herein, on previous occasion has availed the benefit of such practice. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. He files report dated 30th July, 2025 of respondent no.4, Secretary, Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad, which is taken on record.

Mr. Krishnapada Pal, learned Advocate for the respondent no.6 submits that on being asked by the Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad to deposit the remaining amount by way of instalment, the respondent no.6 has deposited the instalment amount to the concerned Zilla Parishad. As such, there is no illegality in grant of lease in favour of respondent no.6. He also seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

As per the report submitted by the respondent-

Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad, the respondent no.6 failed to deposit the entire bid amount within the stipulated period in respect of the notice inviting e-Auction notification being no.17/e-Auction/Ferry/PMZP/2025 dated 20^th February, 2025. Thus, there cannot be any quarrel that the entire bid amount was not deposited by respondent no.6 as per requirement. The said notifica