Madan Chakrabarty vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The primary reason was that the work had already been allotted to a third party on February 24, 2020, before the writ petition was filed and before the interim order of status quo was granted. The petitioner's prayer to prevent the opening of financial bids and to be allowed to participate in them was rendered moot by this prior allotment. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to disclose this crucial fact of allotment in their petition, which is a requirement for parties approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is equitable in nature. The Court stated that adjudicating the petition in its current form would be a futile exercise without challenging the allotment order. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of allotment dated February 24, 2020, and clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioner's disqualification.

Facts

The petitioner, Madan Chakrabarty, filed a writ petition challenging a notice inviting tender (NIT) dated December 17, 2019, issued by the Lakhipur Municipal Board. The petitioner was declared technically disqualified for certain schemes due to non-submission of a GST Certificate. The petitioner sought to set aside the disqualification notice dated February 1, 2020, and to be allowed to participate in the financial bids. An interim order was passed on March 2, 2020, directing the respondents to maintain the status quo. However, the work had already been allotted to a successful bidder on February 24, 2020, prior to the filing of the writ petition on February 27, 2020, a fact not disclosed in the petition. The successful bidder was represented and submitted that they had refrained from proceeding with the work to honor the court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is infructuous given that the work was allotted to a third party on February 24, 2020, prior to the filing of the petition and the subsequent interim order of status quo dated March 2, 2020? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner approached the Court with clean hands, having failed to disclose the material fact of the work allotment in their petition? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were wrongly disqualified for not submitting a GST Certificate and sought to participate in the financial bids. They prayed for a writ of certiorari to set aside the disqualification and a writ of mandamus to direct their participation. Revenue/Respondent's arguments: The Lakhipur Municipal Board, through its Senior Counsel, submitted that the allottee had refrained from proceeding with the work solely to honor the court's order. The Court noted the absence of a challenge to the allotment order dated February 24, 2020, and the lack of disclosure of this fact in the writ petition.