WP(C) 3163/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Handique, learned State Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos 1,2,3 and 4. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue for mal notice to the Respondent No.5. The petitioners, who claim to have formed a partnership firm namely, M/S BK Ent erprise are before this Court being aggrieved by their perceived denial of the o pportunity of submitting their tenders in response to the Notice Inviting Tende r ( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’NIT’) dated 23.5.2011 issued from t he office of the Margherita Anchalik Panchayat for award of settlement of variou s hats/ghats/fisheries as enumerated therein. According to the petitioners, tho ugh they had visited the office of the Block Development Officer, Margherita to submit their tenders at about 1.45 P.M. on 7.6.2011, they found that the tender box was removed being closed before time. They, on the very same date submitted an application before the authority concerned with a request to permit them to submit their tenders, but to no avail. They also submitted a formal representa tion reiterating the said request on 8.6.2011. The said representation also di d not evoke any response. In this background, the petitioners are before this co urt for redress. Mr Talukdar while reiterating the above has sought for judicial intervention. The learned State counsel has urged that as in terms of the NIT, the intending t enderers were required to submit their bids between 11 A.M. to 2 P.M. on 7.6.201 1 in the office of the Margherita Anchalik Panchayat, having regard to the plea ded case of the petitioners, no interference is called for. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the a verments made in the writ petition, the resistance offered by the Respondents ou ght to b e sustained. The contents of paragraph 3 of the writ petition need be quoted for ready reference. The humble petitioners visited the office at 1-45 pm in the Block Development Officer, Margherita with a view to submit the bids against the tender called for by the authority. After visiting the Block Development Officer, Margherita, the petitioners were surprised to find that the tender box where the bids to be sub mitted is no more and the same already taken away before closing the time. There after, petitioners immediately approached the authority for accepting the bids but informed that the box already closed. On enquiry, the petitioners told the authority that since 15 minute time is remain and hence as per the tender the te nder box shall be remain open till 2.00 p.m. for submitting the bids. Further, i n the tender it was also mentioned that the bids shall be opened in front of the bidders or their representative at 2-30 p.m. on the same day and shall take app ropriate decision as per law. Accordingly, the petitioners came 1.45 p.m. for su bmitting the bids. However, petitioners instantly submitted an application at ar ound 1.45 p.m. to the authority with a request to redress their grievances and t he same was acknowledge by the respondent no.4 on the same day but nothing was c onsider in respect of the submission of bids of the petitioners. It would be apparent herefrom that the date of receiving the tenders was fixed on 7.6.2011 as claimed by the petitioners. They visited the office of the Block Development officer, Margherita at 1.45 p.m. on that day to submit their tender s. A plain reading of NIT dated 23.5.2011 discloses that the tenderers were requir ed to submit their tenders from 11 am to 2 p.m. on 7.6.2011 in the office of the Margherita Anchalik Panchayat. The place of visit of the writ petitioners for submission of their tenders as would be apparent from the averments made in the writ petition is different from the one as specified in the NIT. That the peti tioners ought to have visited the premises of the Block Development Officer, Ma rgherita at about 1-45 p.m. as claimed by them is also evident from their repres entation dated 8.6.2011(Annexure-2 to the writ petition) laid before the Sub Div isional Officer(Civil), at Margherita. Not only thus the petitioners have appro ached a wrong place for submission of their tenders, their apparent inaction fo r the remedial intervention of the concerned authorities in time , in the opinio n of this court disentitles them to any relief from this end. This is more so, a s it is evident from the NIT that the tenders received in time were to be open ed on the same date at 2.30 P.M. On a totality of considerations as narrated hereinabove, this court is of the un hesitant opinion that no case has been made out for its intervention in exerci se of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. No costs.