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 been allotted to a successful bidder on February 24, 2020, which was prior to the filing of the writ petition on February 27, 2020. This allotment was not challenged by the petitioner, and there was no application for amendment to challenge it. The Court noted that the petitioner approached the court without disclosing this vital fact, which was a failure to approach with clean hands, even if attributed to ignorance. Since the allotment order was not under challenge, adjudicating the present petition would be a futile exercise. The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, vacated the interim order, and granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of allotment dated February 24, 2020, if so advised. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioner's disqualification.

Facts

The petitioner, Madan Chakraborty, filed a writ petition challenging a notice inviting tender (NIT) dated December 17, 2019, issued by the Lakhipur Municipal Board. The petitioner sought to set aside a notice dated February 1, 2020, which declared him technically disqualified for specific schemes due to non-submission of a GST Certificate. He also prayed for a direction to allow him to participate in the financial bids. An interim order was passed on March 2, 2020, directing the respondents to maintain status quo. However, it was revealed that 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, and this fact was not disclosed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is infructuous given that the work was allotted to a third party on February 24, 2020, before the petition was filed on February 27, 2020, and this allotment was not challenged. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he was wrongly disqualified for non-submission of a GST Certificate and sought to participate in the financial bids. The primary prayer was to set aside the disqualification and allow participation. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, particularly the Lakhipur Municipal Board, argued that the petitioner was disqualified on the stated ground. They also highlighted that the work had already been allotted to a successful bidder, and this allotment was not under challenge. The Senior Counsel for the allottee submitted that they had refrained from proceeding with the work to honor the court's interim order.