24.02.2025 Ct. No. 11 rrc MAT 63 of 2025 (Bijli Matshya Utpadan Group & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya Ms. Anita Shaw …… For the appellants Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. Addl. Govt. Pldr.

Mr. Anirban Sarkar ….. For the State respondents Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 7^th January, 2025 passed the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA No. 13062 of 2023 preferred by the writ petitioners/appellants herein challenging, inter alia, the inaction on the part of the respondents to allow the appellants to start the pisciculture business at Dudhkunda Jalkar (hereinafter referred to as the said jalkar) with immediate effect upon allowing the appellants to pay the full amount of lease rent in favour of the respondents. Such prayer was turned down by the order impugned observing, inter alia, that Constitutional Court in exercise of its power under judicial review cannot alter or modify the tender terms which has otherwise been accepted and acted upon by and between the parties.

Shorn of unnecessary the facts are that a notice dated 6^th September, 2021 was issued by the respondent no.3 inviting tender for grant of lease in respect of the jalkars/waterbodies, as mentioned in the said notice. The appellant no.1 competed in the tender process pertaining to Dudhkunda Jalkar and emerged to be successful and offered to deposit the 1/4^th amount of lease rent by a demand draft and to pay the remaining amount within three months as stipulated under Clause 7 of the said notice dated 6^th September, 2021 but in vain and as such, they were constrained to prefer a writ petition. Pursuant to an order passed in the same, the respondent no.2 passed an order on 30^th March, 2022 and the said jalkar was leased out to the appellant no.1. Subsequent thereto, the State authorities received an amount of Rs.55,250/- from the appellant no. 1 on 26^th April, 2022. As thereafter the appellants were not being allowed to catch fishes from the said jalkar which had been settled in their favour, they lodged a complaint and considering the same, the respondent no.3 vide memo dated 5^th July, 2022 requested the respondent no.7 to render police protection to the lessee society. In the midst thereof, challenging the order dated 30^th March, 2022 passed by the respondent no. 2, a writ petition was also preferred by one NEEB SSD. Upon hearing the same, the Hon’ble Court set aside the order dated 30^th March, 2022. Challenging the said order, the appellants again preferred an appeal and by an order dated 30^th September, 2022 the order impugned in the appeal was set aside and the writ petition was remanded for fresh hearing. The said writ petition being WPA 13062 of

2023 is still pending.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits the learned single Judge did not consider Clause 7 of the tender notice dated 6^th September, 2021 in the light of the fact that the appellant no.1 was the successful tenderer but the 1/4^th amount of lease rent being Rs.55,250/- though offered by the appellants in time, was received by the concerned respondent belatedly on 26^th April, 2022. Thereafter the respondents, in spite of repeated representations, refused to accept the remaining lease rent though the said jalkar was leased out and the appellants’ possession was also directed to be protected. For such inconsistent and unreasonable act of the respondents, the appellants cannot be made to suffer. Such argument, as advanced, was glossed over by the learned single Judge and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

He argues that though the appellant no.1 emerged to be successful in the tender process, the State authorities, without any reason whatsoever, did not comply with the terms and conditions of the tender notice. In view thereof, the observation in the order impugned that the Court ‘cannot alter or mod