24.07.2026 rpan/51 WPA 2155 of 2025 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025 + IA No.: CAN 2 of 2026 + IA No.: CAN 3 of 2026 [not in file] Kaluroy Enterprise - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Others Mr. S. Sanyal, Mr. Joy Chakraborty, Mr. Souvik Ganguly … for the Petitioner. Mr. A. Hati … for the State/Respondents. Mr. Sanjay Saha, Mr. Raju Mondal … for the Respondent nos.2 & 3. Mr. S. Panda, Ms. Haritri Roy, Mr. Anupam Singha … for the Respondent no.4. Mr. Dibashis Basu, Mr. Anish Mukherjee … for the Added Respondent/NIC. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following relief: ‘c. A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents, its men, agents and servants specifically the respondent no.2 to hold the re-auction with regard to the RFP No.: PURBN_30_ 20122024- A11 Dated 20.12.2024 as irregularities are face of it.’ Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that on 20th December, 2024, the respondent no. 2 floated an e-tender for selection of mining operators for certain sand blocks in the State of West Bengal under Categories 'A' and 'B'. The petitioner, being a bidder under Category 'A', participated in the tender process and deposited the requisite earnest money on 19th January, 2025. Thereafter, on 20th January, 2025, the e-auction was conducted. According to the terms and conditions of the tender document, the e-auction was scheduled to close at 5:00 p.m. on 20th January, 2025. It was further stipulated that if any bid was received within the last ten minutes prior to the scheduled closing time, the system would automatically extend the bidding time by a further ten minutes, and such extension would continue in the same manner until no bid was received during the last ten minutes of the extended period. Mr. Chakraborty submits that, contrary to the aforesaid stipulation contained in the tender document, the bidding time was not extended in the prescribed manner despite bids having been received within the last ten minutes. Consequently, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to submit a higher bid during the extended period, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner's participation in the tender process. He further submits that, had the petitioner been afforded an opportunity to participate in the extended bidding process in terms of the tender conditions, it could have emerged as the successful bidder. According to him, on account of such irregularity, the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice. During the course of hearing, Mr. Saha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that, in the interest of revenue generation, it is 2 imperative that the sand blocks be allotted to the successful bidders without further delay. He further submits that, owing to the pendency of the present writ petition and the interim order passed by this Court restraining respondent nos. 2 and 3 from creating any third-party interest in the sand blocks, the tender process has been rendered infructuous and has remained at a standstill. He accordingly submits that respondent nos. 2 and 3 intend to cancel the tender process initiated pursuant to RFP No. PURBN_30_20122024-A11 dated 20.12.2024 and to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with law. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the added respondent no. 5, submits that while respondent nos. 2 and 3 are responsible for initiating and conducting the tender process, the management of the e-auction portal is entrusted to respondent no. 5. He further submits that, on the earlier occasion, the bidding time had in fact been extended in accordance with the stipulation contained in the tender document. However, in view of the decision of respondent nos. 2 and 3 to cancel the earlier tender process and initiate a fresh one, he does not wish to oppose the said course of action and has no objection thereto. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, does not oppose the suggestion advanced by Mr. Saha. In view of the stand taken by the respective parties, the present writ petition, along with all connected applications, is disposed of by setting aside the tender process initiated pursuant to RFP No. PURBN_30_20122024-A11 dated 3 20.12.2024. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall, however, be at liberty to initiate a fresh tender process in respect of the sand blocks covered by the said Request for Proposal, strictly in accordance with law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) 4