Form No.J(2) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 1773 of 2026 Fairdeal Associates & ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Amlesh Ray, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia Ms. Radhika Agarwal Ms. P. Chowdhury Mr. Nigam Mittal Mr. Parthiv Chakraborty Ms. Nikita Kundu Ms. Neha Lama For the State : Mr. Jagriti Mishra, ld. AAAG. Ms. Mrinmayee Das For the Darjeeling municipality : Ms. Supriya Singh Heard on : 02.09.2026, 03.09.2026, 07.09.2026, 08.09.2026 and on 09.09.2026 Judgment on : 09.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. (Oral): 1. Challenging the memo dated 29th July, 2026 whereby the petitioners were informed by the Chairman, Darjeeling Municipality that in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble MIC during her visit to Darjeeling and also as per recommendation of the executive engineer north zone and on behalf 2 WPA 1773 of 2026 of the Board of Councilors in the meeting held on 25th July, 2026, Clause 3 of the agreement has been invoked and forfeiture of security deposit and earnest money deposit as per the relevant tender clauses would be initiated, the present petition has been filed. 2. It would be relevant to note down the facts leading to institution of the present writ petition. The petitioners’ claim that by an e-notice inviting tender dated 9th December, 2017, the respondent No. 7 being the Darjeeling municipality had invited tenders for the work of “laying of Rising Main pipe line(D.I. Pies K-9 and Fittings K-12) for Water Supply Scheme within Darjeeling Municipal area in the district of Darjeeling under AMRUT” for tender value of Rs. 36,60,00,000/-. The petitioners claim that the petitioner No. 1 emerged successfull and consequent thereupon, a letter of acceptance cum work order dated 21st March, 2018 was issued in its favour by the respondent No. 8. 3. The petitioners’ case further proceeds on the premises that independent of the aforesaid contract, the petitioners also participated in another notice inviting tender dated 14th March, 2018 regarding the work of “Laying of Rising Main pipe line(D.I. pipes K-9 and Fittings K-12), PKg-3 for Water Supply Scheme within Darjeeling Municipal area in the district of Darjeeling under AMRUT” for a tender value of Rs. 1,54,26,000/-. 4. It is also the petitioners’ case that that the petitioners had participated in another tender whereupon on becoming successful, a work order dated 4th March, 2024 was issued by the respondent No. 7 which related to the work of “supply and delivery of ISI marked MS Pipes confirming to IS 3589:2001 with latest amendment (make: TATA/SAIL/RINL) having wall thickness not less than 5mm for 100mm and 150 mm DIA pipes and 3 WPA 1773 of 2026 8mm for 200 mm and 250 mm, 300mm, 350 mm and 450 mm DIA pipes, including the transportation, loading, unloading and stacking at Tiger Hill Site, for water supply projects within Darjeeling Water Supply Scheme under AMRUT. According to the petitioners, though the original time for completion of the work under the respective work orders was 180 days for the first work order and for the subsequent two work orders 365 days, however, the respondents had from time to time extended the period for execution of the same. 5. In this context, Mr. Roy has drawn attention of this Court to the applications for extension dated 17th November, 2025 and the consequent extension granted by the executive engineer on 18th November, 2025. According to him, since the petitioner was facing local site problems in the hills, unavailability of construction materials as well as natural climatic conditions, including the issue of permission from forest department, the National Highway Authority, non-supply of materials by the department including pandemic and accordingly, the respondents being conscious of the same had granted the extensions from time to time lastly, with effect from 30th November, 2025 up to 31st July, 2026. According to him, though the petitioners had executed the works even after the order of extension, and the works for PKg-3 had been executed for more than 80 per cent and substantial work for the other contracts have been executed, the respondents all on a sudden without affording any opportunity to show-cause to the petitioners had invoked Clause 3 of the tender in an attempt to rescind the contract. 6. The learned AAAG appearing on behalf of the State had drawn the attention of this Court to the tender documents and the tender terms 4 WPA 1773 of 2026 According to him, the grounds based on which the petitioners were seeking extension were not available to the petitioners as the petitioners were required to be aware of the site conditions before proceeding to participate in the tender process. 7. Ms. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the Darjeeling municipality had placed before this Court the records, including the site inspection report and the letter dated 12th May, 2026 whereby the petitioners were called for meeting which the petitioners did not attend. According to her, petitioners had abandoned the works 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, this Court by order dated 18th September, 2026 directed the respondents to produce the records. This Court has since perused the records and finds that the petitioners did execute the works even after the extensions were granted and after the last extension dated 18th November, 2025 was granted. Though initially it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had abandoned work site and no work had been executed by the petitioners, this Court finds from the records including the measurement book disclosed by the respondents that the work in fact were executed by the petitioners post the extension granted by the respondents. This Court also notes that the extension was lastly granted to the petitioners on the ground noted in the petitioners’ extension letter dated 17th November, 2025. To morefully appreciate the same, the aforesaid letter and the extension granted by the municipality are extracted hereinbelow: 5 WPA 1773 of 2026 6 WPA 1773 of 2026 9. This apart, it also appears that the in the instant case, the petitioners were not issued any show-cause. 10. It may be placed on record after arguing the matter for some time Ms. Singh, learned advocate for the municipality has submitted on instruction that since the petitioners’ grievance is with regard to not been afforded with any show-cause prior to taking a decision, the municipality is ready and willing to re-consider its decision by affording a show-cause to the petitioners. She would submit that the project at hand deals with the execution development projects in the hills and if the project is stalled and the respondents are not in a position to implement the same, the developments in the hills would suffer a greater loss. 11. Considering the peculiar facts and the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that in the best interest of the development of hills, the resolution adopted by the Board of Councilors on 27th July, 2026 should be set aside, for the purpose of affording a show-cause to the petitioners as proposed by the municipality. Accordingly, this Court without deciding on the merits of the challenge directs that the communication dated 29th July, 2026 along with the minutes of the meeting held on 24th July, 2026 to be set aside. Accordingly, let the show-cause be issued on the petitioner No. 1 within 10 working days from date, for the petitioners to respond to the same within 10 days therefrom, following which a reasoned decision shall be taken after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 12. The office is directed to return the original records to Ms. Singh, learned advocate for the municipality against a receipt and upon retaining copies thereof on the file. 7 WPA 1773 of 2026 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sayandeep A.R.(court)