Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 186 (CAL)

Asaduzzaman v. Union of India

2019-02-06

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. The appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the connected application. 2. On 24th January, 2019, after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, this Court had passed the following order: - "... this Court directs the concerned authority of Indian Oil Corporation Limited to file a report in the form of an affidavit on or before the next date stating therein specifically as to whether the Corporation has fixed responsibility upon the person/persons concerned for creating a situation where a tender process - pursuant to an advertisement dated 31st August, 2017 - had to be cancelled and also what was the total public money involved till cancellation as well as for the fresh tender process. List this matter Tuesday week (05.02.2019) for further consideration." 3. Consequently, a report in the form of an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation today, which may be taken on record. This affidavit does not address the issue raised by this Court as to whether Indian Oil Corporation has fixed responsibility upon the person/persons concerned for creating a situation where a tender process - pursuant to an advertisement dated 31st August, 2017 - had to be cancelled. The only disclosure that has been made is that the total public money involved as cost for the process of readvertisement was a sum of Rs. 35,550/-. 4. Although - in the facts and circumstances of the instant case - we are unable to grant any relief to the applicant/appellant, since he has participated in the second tender process on his own volition and choice, we are of the view that the Indian Oil Corporation, being a public sector undertaking, should fix responsibility upon the person/persons concerned for creating a situation where the tender process - pursuant to an advertisement dated 31st August, 2017 - had to be cancelled after a considerable period of time. Admittedly, there is public money involved in the process of re-advertisement. As such, responsibility should be fixed within a period of three weeks from date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order. 5. The appeal and the connected application are disposed of accordingly. 6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. - I agree.