Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited & Anr. vs West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited & Ors.

Krishna Rao, J.:

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 22^nd May, 2025, passed by the Managing Director of the respondent no.1 by rejecting the representation of the petitioners dated 26^th March, 2025 and held that the private respondent has submitted its bid in accordance with Notice Inviting Bid.

The respondent no.1 was desirous of allotting various plots at Baltikuri Industrial Park, situated in Ward No. 50, within Howrah Municipal Corporation at Jagacha, Baltikuri Dasnagar, Howrah, West Bengal – 711 402. The petitioners, being interested in allotment of one of such plots, had applied before the respondent no.1 for allotment of Plot No. J/1A, having a covered area of 6104.86 sq.ft., on a long term lease basis, upon payment of the requisite fees of Rs. 7,080/- for the purpose of manufacturing high quality structural bearings, expansion joints, seismic protection, structural health monitoring system for bridges and other structures.

The respondent no.1 through the respondent no.3 informed the petitioner no.2 that multiple applications have been received by the respondent no.1 for allotment of the said plot and as per land allotment policy all such applications would be processed through bidding/ auction process to select the highest bidder and requested the petitioners to fill up the bidding format, along with the submitted bid price of the petitioners and send a signed copy of the same in a sealed envelope, through speed post or registered post or by hand, to the respondent no.1 on or before 12^th March, 2025 within 02.00 P.M.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted its price bid at 01.50 P.M. on 12^th March, 2025 through their representative, namely, Sudipta Mukherjee. The representative of the petitioners during his stay in the office of the respondent no. 1 on 12^th March, 2025, finds that the respondent no. 1 has received bid in a sealed envelope, from other entity after 02.00 PM. Immediately, the petitioner no.1 thorough its Senior Manager by an e-mail dated 12^th March, 2025, informed the respondent no. 2 about such unusual things observed by the representative of the petitioner no. 1 during submission of bid documents and requested to take action against such illegal activities. On 13^th March, 2025, the petitioner no. 1 submitted a complaint to the respondent no. 2 informing that the private respondent or its sister concern had submitted bid documents beyond the stipulated time which constitutes a breach of standard bidding norms. The petitioners requested the respondent no.1 to reject the bid of the private respondent.

Mr. Bhattacharya submits that immediately, the respondent no.4 by an email dated 13^th March, 2025, informed the petitioners that the collection of handling of bid documents were carried out as per the established norms, and there was no preferential treatment extended to any bidder and no submission of bid was accepted beyond the official cut-off time. Being aggrieved with the said communication, the petitioners have submitted an appeal to the Vice Chairman of the respondent no. 1 to intervene and to ensure that the petitioners be granted a fair opportunity for allotment and a proposal was also given for an open auction for the said plot. The respondent no. 1 did not reply to the request made by the petitioners.

Mr. Bhattacharya submits that being aggrieved by such action of the Respondent No. 1 Company, the petitioners had filed a Writ Petition, being W.P.O. No. 274 of 2025, before this Court, praying for a fresh tender process for allotment of Plot No. J/1A at Baltikuri Industrial Park and for conducting an open auction, either in physical or in virtual form, for the purpose of allotment of such Plot.

Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 8^th May, 2025, whereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioners on 26^th March, 2025 and to ascertain as to whether any bid was accepted beyond the stipulated time period. The CCTV footages may be viewed to ascertain proper facts. If the allegations of the petitioners appear to be true, then necessary remedial measures shall be taken. The Respondent No. 2 was further directed to pass a reasoned order in this regard.

In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 8^th May, 2025, the respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order by holding that the allegation made by the petitioners that the private respondent submitted their bid after stipulated time is found incorrect and not tenable. In the order, it is further recorded that retention period of the recorded footage of the CCTV is approximately 28 days and thereafter the oldest data is automatically overwritten and the same is no longer available.

Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that the Petitioners collected the Register Book of the Respondent No. 1 Company, which evidences the entry and exit time of every person who entered into the building premises of the Respondent No. 1 Company. Such Register Book shows that the representative of the Respondent No. 5, namely, Mr. R. Mukherjee, had entered at the gate of the premises of the Respondent No. 1 Company on 12^th March, 2025, only at 2:00 P.M. which proves that the bid document is submitted after stipulated time of 02:00 P.M.

Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Learned Advocate, representing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that the disputes agitated in the earlier writ petition, being W.P.O. No. 274 of 2025, and the present writ petition are almost identical and similar. Therefore, the present writ petition cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issue as the principles of Estoppel and res-judicata come in the way of re-agitation of the same issue again.

Mr. Gupta submits that the bid of the Respondent No. 5 was accepted, being the highest bid. The Petitioners were unsuccessful in getting the tender, the petitioners alleged that the said bid of the Respondent No. 5 was not in time. He further submits that there is no irregularity and illegality in the impugned order being passed by the Respondent No. 2, dated 22^nd May, 2025.

Mr. Gupta submits that the petitioners have disclosed the alleged copy of the Gate Register Book but the petitioners have not placed the same before the respondent authorities and as such the respondent authorities have no occasions to look into the said document. He further submits that the petitioners have not stated in the writ petition how the petitioners have got the alleged document. He further submits that the document relied by the petitioners is a Xerox copy and the petitioners are not having any original or certified copy and as such the said document cannot be relied upon.

Mr. Gupta submits that on 13^th March, 2025, the respondent authorities have rejected the representations submitted by the petitioners and in the order dated 13^th March, 2025, the respondent authorities have categorically stated that no preferential treatment was extended to any bidder nor any bid document was accepted beyond the official cut-off time. He submits that the said order was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in a writ petition, and the said writ petitioner is disposed of by this Court on 8^th May, 2025, but this Court has not set aside the order dated 13^th March, 2025 and the said order is remains on record.

Mr. Gupta submits that the storage of CCTV footage was remain only for 28 days and when the authorities have considered the representation submitted by the petitioners in terms or the order dated 8^th May, 2025, at that point of time CCTV footage was not available with the authorities and the petitioners failed to produce any document to establish that the authorities have accepted the bid document of the private respondent beyond the cut-off time.

Mr. Gupta submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is relates to the contractual disputes and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. He further submits that while disposing of the said writ petition by this Court on the earlier occasion dated 8^th May, 2025, it was the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners have approached this Court at the belated point of time even then, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent authorities have provided further opportunity to the petitioners but the petitioners failed to prove their contentions.

Mr. Gupta has relied upon the judgment in the case of Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transporters and Suppliers vs. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors & Ors. reported in (2021) 16 SCC 808 and submits that if the decision relating to the award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising the order of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out.

Mr. Gupta further relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Mehar Din reported in (2022) 5 SCC 648 and submits that the Court should exercise the power of judicial review with a lot of restrain, particularly in contractual and commercial matters.

Mr. Jaydeep Kar, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the Respondent No. 5, submits that it is being incorrectly alleged by the petitioners that the respondent authorities had accepted the Respondent No. 5's bid after the expiry of the stipulated time, i.e., 12th March, 2025 at 02:00 PM. A case is sought to be made out by the petitioners upon coming to learn that the Petitioner No. 1 has been unsuccessful in securing an allotment in its favour from the respondent authorities. It is the petitioners’ allegation that the bid of the Respondent No. 5 was submitted beyond 02:00 PM. Such allegations are unfounded and unsubstantiated. Upon failing to secure an allotment in its favour and upon the Respondent No. 5 emerging as the highest bidder, the petitioners had instituted the said application on a false and frivolous pretext and with a mala fide motive. The petitioners have adopted contrary stands and the same would be evident from the statements and documents disclosed in the said application.

Mr. Kar submits that Respondent No. 5 had duly filled up the bidding format made over by the Respondent No. 3, and upon securing the same in a sealed envelope, had submitted the same to the office of the Respondent No. 2 before 2:00 PM on 12th March, 2025.

Mr. Kar submits that for the purpose of entering the office of the Respondent No. 1, an entry is required to be made in the register maintained at the gate by the watchman. The representative of the Respondent No. 5, namely, Mr. R. Mukherjee, reached the office on 12th March, 2025 at around 1:45 PM. Upon entering the office, he observed that 4-5 persons were waiting to enter their details in the register, to avoid delay, he requested the watchman to allow him to visit the office of the Respondent No. 2 at the 2nd Floor of the building without making an entry, as the time was short and by the time he made the entry, he would miss his chance, since the bid had to be submitted without fail before 2:00 PM. He accordingly sought permission of the watchman and assured him that he would make the requisite entry at the time of leaving the building. The watchman agreed and permitted him to enter the building. Therefore, he made the requisite entry in the register maintained by the watchman at the time of leaving the said building. Since he was in a hurry, he could not remember the exact time of entry. Upon consulting the watchman, he entered the time of his exit as his time of entry.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on records and the judgments relied by the respondent authorities. By a communication dated 13^th March, 2025, the request of the petitioners rejected by the authorities on the ground that the authorities have strictly followed the guidelines and the bidding process was conducted in a transparent and fair manner and no preferential treatment was extended to any bidder nor any submission of the bid document was accepted beyond the official cut-off time. In the said order, the authorities have come to the findings that the authorities have accepted the bid of the private respondent beyond the time period mentioned in the bid document was without any cogent and documentary evidence.

This Court while disposing of the previous writ application dated 8^th May, 2025, directed the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioners on 26^th March, 2025, and to ascertain as to whether any bid was accepted beyond the stipulated period and CCTV footage may be viewed to ascertain the proper fact. This Court has further directed that if the allegation of the petitioners appears to be true, then necessary remedial measures shall be taken.

In compliance of the order dated 8^th May, 2025, the respondent authorities have passed the impugned order dated 22^nd May, 20026. In the said impugned order, it is recorded that at the time of rejection of application of the petitioners dated 12^th March, 2025, the authorities have taken into consideration of the available records and evidence including CCTV footage and rejected the representation of the petitioners dated 12^th March, 2025 and 13^th March, 2025.

In the order dated 13^th March, 2025, there is no such finding of the respondent authorities that the respondent authorities have considered CCTV footage at the time of considering of the representation of the petitioners dated 12^th March, 2025. As per the case of the respondent authorities, the retention period of the recorded footage of the CCTV is only 28 days and thus, at the time of passing the impugned order, it was not possible for the respondent authorities to consider the CCTV footage. The best evidence available with the respondent authorities was CCTV footage but the same was not considered when the authorities decided the representation dated 13^th March, 2025.

Now, the petitioners are relying upon copy of gate register book maintained by the respondent authorities at the entrance gate and the affidavit submitted by one Sudipta Mukherjee, the Officer-Administration of the petitioners firm. As per the statement made by the Mr. Sudipta Mukherjee that he attended the office of the respondent authorities on 12^th March 2023 at 1.50 PM and submitted his bid document. When he was present in the office of the respondent authorities, he observed that the respondents have accepted one sealed cover from the private respondent after expiry of schedule time i.e. after 02:00 P.M.

The petitioners are intending to prove from the copy of the entry gate register book that the representative of the private respondent was entered at the entrance gate at 02:00 P.M. and thus, there is no question to submit bid document in the office of the respondent no.1 at 02:00 P.M. The respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition with regard to the extract of the gate register, it is mentioned that the same was not produced by the petitioners at the time of taking decision by the authorities. The private respondent in its affidavit stated as follows:

The private respondent has not denied with regard to the existence of the entry gate register book. It is the case of the private respondent that to avoid delay he requested the watchman to allow him to visit the office of the respondent which is at 2^nd floor of the building and without making entry, he went to the office of the respondent no.2 and while returning from office, he could not remember the exact time of entry and upon consultation with the watchman, he entered the time of his exit as his time of entry.

The document appearing at page 106 and 106A i.e. the extract copy of entry gate register book was not with the respondent no.2 while deciding the representation submitted by the petitioners in terms of the order passed by this Court. First time, the petitioners have disclosed the extract of the register in the present writ petition. From the said document, it reveals that the representative of the private respondent entered at the main gate at 2.00 P.M. but the case made out by the private respondent is otherwise.

Since beginning, the petitioners have relied upon the CCTV footage but the respondent authorities have neither consider the CCTV footage at the time of passing of the order dated 13^th March, 2025 nor on 22^nd May, 2025. Now the petitioners have procured additional evidence to prove that the private respondent has submitted bid document after 2.00 P.M. The said document was not before the respondent no.2 at the time of passing the orders on 13^th May, 2025 or on 22^nd May, 2025. The document now relied upon the petitioners is the document of the respondent authority and is the crucial document to decide the issue raised by the petitioners.

There was an evidence of CCTV footage but the respondent authorities have not considered the same when the authorities disposed of the representation of the petitioners dated 12^th March, 2025. While passing the impugned order, it is the case of the authorities that the retention period of the recorded footage of CCTV is approximately 28 days and thereafter the old data is automatically overwritten. Now the petitioners are relying upon the extract copy of gate register book. The document is not in dispute, but the private respondent has taken a specific defense with regard to entry of time in the gate register. The document which now the petitioners are relying upon is required to be examined and to ascertain whether the time entered in the register is of the entry time or exit, which can be ascertain by giving the parties to an opportunity of hearing.

Mr. Gupta has raised the point of res-judicata but this Court finds that the earlier writ petition was disposed of by this Court by directing the authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioners dated 26^th March, 2025 and while considering the representation CCTV footage may be viewed. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 22^nd May, 2025, which is a separate cause of action and thus the issue raised by Mr. Gupta is not tenable.

Considering the circumstances mentioned above, the impugned order dated 22^nd May, 2025, is set aside and quashed. The respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioners along with the gate entry register book maintained at the gate and if necessary to call for the original register book and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties to dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

WPO No. 435 of 2025 is disposed of.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.