48 2211..0011..22002255 Ct. No. 11 rrc FMA 802 of 2020 with CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 7727 of 2019) (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Alakesh Singha) Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel …. For the appellants Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty Mr. Soumya Kanti Sinha Ms. Suprana Das …. For the respondent The present appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal and its functionaries, challenging an order dated 23rd February, 2018 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 14482 (W) of 2018. By the said order, the State of West Bengal through its appropriate agencies were directed to cause a joint inspection of the site in question along with the representative of the writ petitioner/respondent herein, with a further direction upon the appellant no. 4 to file a report in the form of an affidavit. By the said order the appellant no.3 was also restrained from taking any further action for fresh auction in respect of the plot in question. Drawing our attention to clauses 6.3 and 6.4 of the Notice for Inviting e-auction Tender (hereinafter referred to as NIT) for Sand Mining Blocks, Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellants submits that it was incumbent upon the respondent to undertake site visit at his own cost and risk and to ascertain the site conditions, location, 2 communication, climate, availability of power and any other factors with prior notice to the State Government. The respondent admittedly failed to conduct such site inspection and as such, the learned single Judge erred in law in directing the appellants to cause a joint inspection of the site in question. Such inspection, in fact, amounts to re-writing of the tender clauses. Drawing our attention to the impugned order, he further submits that on the basis of an order passed on concession of the learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, the direction for an inspection of the site ought not to have been passed. He argues that the respondent had ample opportunity to visit the site in question in terms of clause 6.3 of the NIT but he chose not to conduct such inspection. Though he emerged to be a successful bidder, he failed to deposit the first installment of the bid amount. In the said conspectus, the learned single Judge ought not to have exercised discretion in favour of the respondent moreso when, no legal right of the respondent was infringed. In support of the arguments advanced reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Jalgaon Golden Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2020) 6 Mh.L.J. 532, Kalyan Health Care Products & Pharmaceuticals through Yogesh Juidal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9354, MEP RGSL Toll Bridge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State 3 Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2021 (4) Mh.L.J. and Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, however, denies and disputes the contention of the appellants and submits that following the GPS coordinates provided in NIT, the respondent physically inspected the plot, but the same was found to be situated on the other side of the Subarnarekha River which was in the State of Odisha. In view thereof, the respondent was constrained to prefer the writ petition. Drawing out attention to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition Mr. Chakraborty submits that in respect of another sand mining block being MDTNB- 16 which was put up for auction in the same NIT, a similar order towards inspection was passed. The said order was duly complied with upon obtaining environment clearance. In view thereof, the appellants cannot take a different stand in respect of the respondent moreso when, as natural resources are public goods, the doctrine of equality must guide the State. In support of such arguments reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 1. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 4 Indisputably, the Sand Mining Block of one Shankar Das (MDTNB -16) and the sand block in respect of which the respondent had been the successful tenderer were put up for auction vide NIT dated 10th January, 2018. Upon inspection by the respondent on the basis of the GSP coordinates provided in the NIT the block was found to be situated on the other side of the Subarnarekha River which was in the State of Odisha. The Court passed an order towards inspection in the case of Shankar Das. Pursuant thereto, an inspection was conducted and ultimately, upon obtaining necessary clearance from the appropriate authority, the lease deed was executed in favour of Shankar Das on 15th March, 2024. In the said conspectus and as both the Sand Mining Blocks are in the District of Paschim Medinipur, no different stand could have been taken by the appellants. For the reasons discussed above, no interference is called for in the present appeal. The appeal being FMA 802 of 2020 and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 7727 of 2019) are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)