September 8, 2026 (35) ARDR WPA 22423 of 2026 M/s. Maa Construction & anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Sujata Das, Adv. Kaustav Banerjee, Adv. Ria Kundu, …for the petitioners. Adv. Shaunak Ghosh, Adv. Megha Datta, …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners and the report submitted by the State are taken on record. Pursuant to a notice inviting e-tender floated by the Block Development Officer, Manikchak Development Block, Malda on 23rd July, 2026, the petitioners participated in the tender and duly uploaded the required documents and credentials in terms of the same. The technical bid submitted by the petitioners was rejected on 12th August, 2026 for reasons unknown to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that clause 7.3(ii) of the tender reads that during evaluation, the tenderer may be summoned and any clarification/ information or additional documents or original hardcopy of any of the documents already submitted may be sought for and if these cannot be produced within the stipulated time frame, the tender of the defaulter will be liable for rejection. The petitioners were not summoned for clarification/information in terms of the said clause despite which the technical bid submitted by them was rejected. The petitioners seek reconsideration of the documents 2 submitted by them. Learned counsel submits that the financial bid has not been opened. Learned counsel for the State submits that 10th August, 2026 was fixed for production of originals by agency or its representative. Though the other three tenderers appeared before the authority for verification of their documents, the petitioners remained absent on the said date for which their documents submitted online could not be verified. Learned counsel also submits that the financial bid has been opened on 12th August, 2026 and work order has been issued in favour of one Dulal Sk. on 14th August, 2026. The terms of the tender clearly enumerates that the tenderers are to produce the original documents for verification on 10th August, 2026 which is followed by clause 7.3 which states that during evaluation summons may be issued to the tenderers if further clarification/ information/additional documents were required. In other words, after verification of the original documents on 10th August, 2026, if there was requirement for further clarification, 7.3(ii) would come into play. Since the petitioners did not appear before the authority and produce the originals for verification on 10th August, 2026, their bid was not accepted. Also, work order has already been issued. There is no illegality/infirmity in the decision taken by the authority which requires interference by this Court. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs. 3 Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)