IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/145/2025 Central Studio and Colour and Colour Lab Vs. The Lieutenant Governor and others Mr. Rajinder Singh Ms. Archana Devi … for the petitioner Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi … for the respondents April 02, 2025 [Manoj] Item No.5 The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 21st October, 2024 passed by the respondent No. 4. Mr. Rajinder Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that by a memo dated 31st January, 2019 e- tenders were invited from amongst the professional video production companies /agencies for providing videography and photography teams for the coverage of the Parliamentary Election of 2019 on as and when required basis as per the directive of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner participated in the e-tender process and emerged to be successful. Accordingly, an acceptance letter was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 05th March, 2019. Subsequent thereto, by a memo dated 11th March, 2019 the Purchase Officer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioner that its teams are required for setting up of video coverage and requested the petitioner to direct the videographers to report their respective teams on or before 12th March, 2019. Accordingly, such videographers were placed and they conducted videography on diverse dates and bills were raised to that effect as would be explicit from the documents annexed at pages 29 to 142 to the writ petition. Thereafter repeated reminders were issued for disbursement of the total bill amount of Rs. 71,20,900/- but about three years thereafter only an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was credited to the petitioner’s account on 01st March, 2022. Praying for disbursement of the remaining amount, the petitioner again submitted representations but in vain though the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer issued a letter to the Secretary (Finance) A &N Administration and others to discuss about the release of outstanding bills towards videography coverage. The petitioner was thus constrained to prefer a writ petition being WPA/906/2023 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 13th October, 2023 directing the respondent No. 4 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation upon granting opportunity of hearing. Thereafter upon service of said order, the respondent No. 4 called the petitioner for a hearing and passed an order on 21st May, 2024 asking him to submit written submission as regards the issues indicated in the said order. Though such direction was complied with, no further steps were taken by the respondents and that as such the petitioner was constrained to prefer a contempt application on 17th September, 2024 and only thereafter an interim order was passed by the respondent No. 4 on 24th September, 2024 with a direction upon the petitioner to submit the acknowledgment receipt for the submission of the DVDs/Photographs in original with all relevant documents/records as mentioned in the terms and conditions laid down in the e-tender. Thereafter reminders were issued to furnish such acknowledgment receipt by memoranda dated 07th October, 2024 and 14th October, 2024 and abruptly thereafter and without hearing the petitioner’s representative a final order was passed on 21st October, 2024 rejecting the petitioner’s claim observing that it had not complied with clauses (m) & (n) of terms and conditions specified in the e-tender notice dated 31st January, 2019. He argues that under the terms and conditions of the contract there was no requirement to obtain any acknowledgment receipt. However, the said clause (m) provided that the original should be handed over within three hours on completion of the coverage of the event. Such term was duly complied with by the petitioner. The videography was done only on the instruction of the Team Leader appointed by the respondent no.4 as would be explicit from the daily statements signed by the said officer. The bills submitted by the petitioner were even verified by the respondent No.6 and necessary entries were made in the Bill Register. Even while disbursing the part amount, no such acknowledgment receipt was called for nor it was alleged that the petitioner had not complied with the said clauses (m) & (n). Question of non-compliance of the said clauses do not arise since there is no provision towards submission of any acknowledgment receipt and it was never alleged that the petitioner has not used Sony DVD-HDV or similar camera. The videographer was allowed to conduct such videographer by the Team Leader appointed by the respondent no.4. As such, the respondent no. 4 could not have rejected the petitioner’s claim raising a plea of non-production of acknowledgment receipt about five years after such videography was concluded. Mr. Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing for the Administration, however, vehemently disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the matter involves disputed question of facts which can only be established by leading evidence before the appropriate forum. No mala fide or arbitrariness is attributable to the respondents warranting the interference of this Court. The petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract and as such it cannot claim for any direction towards disbursement of the alleged dues through the present writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, its claim needs to be relegated to the appropriate civil forum. Drawing my attention to the memo dated 31st January, 2019, Mr. Dwivedi further submits that the said documents itself would reveal that the estimated cost of the contract was approximately Rs.10.00 lakhs but the petitioner herein is claiming an amount of more than Rs.70.00 lakhs. No work seeking disbursement of such an amount could not have undertaken by the petitioner in terms of the e-tender. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The order impugned in the present writ petition reveals that the petitioner’s claim has been rejected primarily on the ground that he did not comply with the provisions of clauses (m) and (n), as specified in the e-tender notice dated 31st January, 2019. Quoting the said clauses, the respondent no.4 observed that the prayer for settlement of bills cannot be allowed because the petitioner has failed to provide substantial evidence. It, however, cannot be disputed that the petitioner emerged to be successful in the tender process. It was allotted the work as would be explicit from the memo dated 11th March, 2019 which speaks about placement of the videographer. In the said memo, it was also stated that the In-charge, Video Surveillance Team would be responsible for engagement of the videographer as per requirement. The documents annexed to the writ petition reveal that the work was allotted to the videographer as placed by the petitioner. The date and duration of the engagement of such videographer has also been certified by the Team leader and accordingly it is explicit that work was extracted from the persons engaged by the petitioner and to that effect the bills were also submitted contemporaneously. All the said documents have been annexed at pages 29 to 142 to the writ petition. Having admitted such engagement of the videographer, the respondents cannot deny payment of the bills. The document annexed at page 149 also reveals that the petitioner was not asked to produce any acknowledgement receipt for the submission of DVDs/photographs in original. It is only after the contempt application was filed, such acknowledgement receipt was called for by memoranda dated 7th October, 2024 and 14th October, 2024 and within a week thereafter the petitioner’s claim was abruptly rejected on the ground that it had failed to produce the acknowledgement receipt. In clause (m) of the memo dated 31st January, 2019, there is no specific condition to the effect that there was any requirement on the part of the petitioner to obtain any acknowledgement receipt. This Court finds substance in the argument of Mr. Singh that as to how the respondent could have disbursed an interim amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs without insisting for supply of any acknowledgement receipt. The self-same officer cannot take a different stand. Merely because one of the parties to the litigation has raised a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the writ Court is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the present case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s claims had been rejected in an unreasonable manner by the order impugned in the writ petition. Fairness and reasonableness are paramount issues for administrative action. The State must conduct itself with high probity and candour and ensure that the persons engaged through a tender process do not succumb to any discriminatory practice in the procedural rigmarole. Applying such proposition of law to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.4 could not have rejected the petitioner’s claim on the basis of the clauses (m) and (n) of the memo dated 31st January, 2019. Accordingly, the order dated 21st October, 2024 passed by the respondent no.4 is set aside and the said respondent is directed to take a decision in the light of the observations made in this order and upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative and to communicate the said order to the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities. ( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )