Pradip Kr Ghosh v. State Of Tripura And ORS

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA W.P. (C) 479 of 2014 Sri Pradip Kr. Ghosh S/O Lt. Nepal Ch. Ghosh, Sibnagar, College Road, West Tripura District, Agartala, 799001.

........... Petitioner - Vs. -

1. The State of Tripura Represented by the Secretary, To the Govt. of Tripura, Fisheries Department, Civil Secretariat, Agartala.

2. The Director of Fisheries, Govt. of Tripura, Pandit Neheru Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala - 799006.

3. M/S Tripura Cattle Fish, Proprietor Sri Goutam Chowdhury, Chowmuhani Bazar, Sekerkote, West Tripura, Office Ramnagar, Road No.5, Agartala.

4. M/S Prasanta Dey Bhattapukur, P.S & P.O. A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura - 799003.

5. Sri Binoy Kr. Das Badharghat, Sreepalli, P.O: Dukli, West Tripura, Agartala.

........... Respondents

BEFORE

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. GA. Nos.1 & 2.

For the respondent : Mr. B. Banerjee, Advocate. Nos. 3 to 5.

Date of hearing & : 20.01.2015. delivery of Judgment & Order Whether fit for : No.

reporting JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (Deepak Gupta, CJ.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that he had submitted his tender for supply of fish feed to the Department of Fisheries and that his tender was the lowest, but the Department had wrongly placed orders on the private respondents whose rates were higher.

2.

On 01.12.2014, based on this allegation made by the petitioner, we had issued notice to the Department. The Department has filed reply and has stated that the tender of the petitioner was not considered because the tender was declared to be informal since the tenderer had not furnished Demand Draft as specified in the NIT.

3.

This Court has already decided this issue in W.P. (C) No. 433 of 2014 and held that it is for the Department Inviting Tenders to decide on which bank the bank draft should be drawn. We had thrice called upon the petitioner to inform us that in view of this reply what steps he wants to take. The only reply given by W.P. (C) 479 of 2014 Page 02 of 03

the learned counsel is that his client had never been informed about this fact that his tender had been declared informal. At least in the reply this fact has been stated and no prayer has been made by the petitioner that he wants to challenge this order. 4.

Therefore, we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE sima W.P. (C) 479 of 2014 Page 03 of 03