Mustakim Alam v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

13.02.2025 Item No.13 RP/SM Ct. No.01 WPA (P) 520 of 2024 Mustakim Alam VS.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi Ms. Ayasha Najrin Md. Muslehuddin ....For Petitioner Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P.

Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Saptak Sanyal ....For State Mr. Gangadhar Das Ms. Shreya Banerjee .... For Respondent No.7

1. By filing this public interest litigation the petitioner alleges that the Pradhan of Kushida Gram Panchayat has violated the norms while calling for tenders. We have gone through the writ petition and we find allegations are absolutely vague. According to the petitioner, the contractor, who was awarded certain works, did not possess required credentials and certain forged documents were produced and based on it the Pradhan has awarded the work. The contractor, against whom allegations are being made, has not been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Apart from that the petitioner has not even clearly explained as to the source of documents. It is stated that the documents were downloaded from the website, which

appear to be false statement because Annexure P-1 at page 31 of the writ petition, which is a copy of memo no.460/KGP/2023 dated 4.12.2023, shows the marking of 'O/C', which would indicate that it is an official copy. Apart from that there is sign of the seal of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, there is an insider, who is giving information to the writ petitioner and on the basis of the same information the writ petition has been filed. Furthermore, in the writ petition the petitioner has stated about a complaint given by the Upa-Pradhan to the Block Development Officer. It is not clear as to how the petitioner came to know about such complaint. Thus, it can be prima facie seen that somebody is behind the writ petition. In any event, we find that the allegations being made are vague, no direction can be passed in the writ petition. However, it is open to the writ petitioner to pursue his representation before the authority.

2. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.)