30.07.2026 Court No.25 D/L No.5 S. Gayen In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 3378 of 2026 Steve Infrastructure Private Limited & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. S. M. Hassan Mr. Bhagirath Dey Ms. Anupama Yasmin …for the Petitioners Ms. Sudipa Banerjee Ms. Manisha Paswan …for the State Mr. Sbojyoti Chakraborty Ms. Riya Ghosh Ms. Debolina Ghosh …for the Howrah Zilla Parishad 1. The respondent Nos. 3 to 8 have filed their affidavit-in- opposition. Let the same be kept with the record. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they will not file any reply. 3. Though the matter is listed today as ‘To Be Mentioned’ but both the parties have given consent to hear the matter today. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. The respondents have issued e-tender notice on second call for selection of contractor for dredging/desalting/removal of riverbed materials from within the site location of Chitrasenpur Khal, Someswar Khal and Damodar Char. The petitioners have participated in the said tender and in the technical bid the petitioners were declared as qualified bidder. Subsequently, the petitioners were declared as 2 L1 bidder and the petitioners have quoted an amount of Rs. 13,41,450/-. In spite of the fact that the petitioners have qualified and are L1 bidder but the respondent authorities have not issued the work order to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the writ application being WPA 26855 of 2025. 5. During the hearing of the said writ application, the respondent authorities have urged before this Court that one bidder, namely, Ashish Singha who was not qualified in the technical bid has made an email on August 28, 2025 stating that he has been disqualified due to non-submission of RFP document and stated that as per the general condition regarding submission of the bid in RFP Clauses 6.1 and 6.2, there is no mentioning about the document. On receipt of the email of the unsuccessful bidder, the Executive Officer, Howrah Zilla Parishad by its litter dated October 13, 2025 has informed that the bidder did not raise any query during the window time from August 22, 2025 at 17:00 hours to August 28, 2025 at 11:00 hours. The respondent authorities further submitted that the RFP clause has been framed by the WBMDTCL and the authorities have referred the matter for clarification to the WBMDTCL but the Howrah Zilla Parishad has not received any clarification from the said authority and as such the work was not awarded. 6. Considering the submission of the respondent authorities, this Court has disposed of the writ application by directing the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to 3 take appropriate decision by January 8, 2026 with regard to the tender submitted by the petitioners wherein the petitioners have been declared as L1. 7. After the order passed by this Court, on January 5, 2026, the Zilla Parishad has passed the impugned order on February 5, 2026 informing the petitioners that the tender has been cancelled. Being aggrieved with the order of cancellation, the petitioners have filed the present writ application. 8. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is the stand of the respondent authorities that since the original proposal had been made much earlier, it was considered necessary in public interest that the Irrigation & Waterways Department should undertake a fresh technical verification of the present condition of the canals before any further decision was taken. It was further stated that after the cancellation of the earlier tender, the respondent authorities resolved to initiate a fresh e-auction only after obtaining technical verification of the proposed river and khal from the Irrigation & Waterways Department. 9. Considering the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-opposition, this Court fails to appreciate that on the earlier round of litigation the respondent authorities have not taken the said stand. The only stand of the respondent authorities in the earlier round of litigation was that one of the unsuccessful bidder had filed an objection with regard 4 to Clause 6.1 and 6.2 of the RFP and the respondent authorities for clarification of the said clause have referred the matter to the WBMDTCL and authorities are awaiting the report from the WBMDTCL. 10. This Court had disposed of the said writ application by directing the authorities for taking appropriate steps. Now the respondent authorities have taken the decision for cancelling the tender. 11. This Court finds that the ground on which the tender has been cancelled, is afterthought. It is also found from the record that the tender notice was issued on July 25, 2025 on the basis of the said e-action tender, altogether 11 forms have participated. After opening of the technical bid as well as the financial bid, the petitioners was declared L1. Out of the 11 forms, no one has raised any objection except one. The person who has raised the objection, he was the unsuccessful bidder in the technical bid and the respondent authorities on the earlier round of litigation was of the view that they were awaiting the report from the WBMDTCL to the objection raised by the unsuccessful bidder. Now the respondent authorities have changed their stand and cancelled the tender. 12. Considering the above, this Court finds that the stand taken by the respondent authorities by cancelling the tender is not justifiable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated February 5, 2026 wherein the tender has been cancelled is set aside and quashed. The 5 respondent authorities are directed to take appropriate steps for awarding the contract in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, WPA 3378 of 2026 stands disposed of. 14. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)