WP(C) 2842/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.2842 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No.2843 of 2011 as well as Mr. D. Das, learned S tanding counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5. Also heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel representing newly impleaded respondent No.6 in both the cases. 2. The factual matrix of both W.P.(C) No.2842 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No.2843 o f 2011 are more or less identical in nature. The parties are also represented by the same set of counsel and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties , these two petitions have been taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself . 3. It would be pertinent to mention here that the writ petitions had been l isted for motion hearing on a number of occasions and there were also directions from this Court to the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 to file affidavits. There is no affidavit on record on behalf of the respondent No.6 in both the cases. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, had sought time ear lier on a couple of occasions to respond to the affidavits filed by the responde nt Nos.3,4 and 5. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learn ed counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not intend to file reply aff idavit and that the matter be taken up for disposal. It is in this background th at these cases have been taken up for disposal today. 5. It is not really necessary to recite the antecedent facts leading to the notice inviting tender dated 16.5.2011 which has given rise to the writ petitio ns. The notice inviting tender has been issued by the respondent No.5 for settle ment of (i) Silai Nalia Group Fisheries and (ii) Sareswar Beel Fisheries for the period commencing from 1.6.2011 for a period of 7 years. The last date of recei pt of tender was fixed at 2 P.M. of 30.5.2011 and it was also indicated in the s aid notice inviting tender that tenders would be opened on the same very date at 2.30 P.M. 6. The thrust of the allegation of the writ petitioners in both the cases i s that the petitioners had gone to submit their tenders on 30.5.2011 well ahead of the closing time and when they had gone to submit their tenders, they were il legally and forcefully obstructed and restrained from entering the premises of t he venue of the tender by some miscreants. It has also been alleged that the mis creants were carrying weapons with them and the Secretary and the other members of the petitioners were threatened with dire consequences if they attempted to s ubmit their tenders. Allegations have also been made that the police personnel p osted there were silent and mute spectators, who did not come to the aid of the petitioners even though their help was solicited. Indications were also given th at may be, the other tenderers who assembled there and who had submitted their t enders, were in collusion with each other. The attempt to lodge the first inform ation report with the police also bore no fruit as the police authorities refuse d to register an FIR. 7. Further case of the petitioners is that both the petitioners filed repre sentation at around 2 P.M. after the expiry of the time for submission of tender before the respondent No.4 stating that they were restrained and prevented from submitting tender by some miscreants who were present at the venue and therefor e, time should be extended so as to enable them to file their tenders. No action was taken on the said representation and the authorities went ahead to open the tenders at the stipulated time of 2.30 P.M. 8. In the affidavit dated 17.6.2011, filed by the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 in both the cases, it has been stated that the tender box was kept ready for sub mission of tenders in the office of the respondent No.5 to enable the prospectiv e tenderers to file their tenders during office hours. Averments have also been made that security personnel had been deployed at the office premises so that th e tenders papers may be submitted without any obstruction. During the entire per iod upto 2 P.M. of 30.5.2011, there was no report of any kind indicating that an y untoward incident like attempt to prevent the prospective tenderers were made by interested parties. The security personnel also did not inform about any such attempt by any party. While acknowledging the receipt of the representation sub mitted by the petitioners, it has been indicated that by the time the representa tion was received, the tender box was sealed. When the said affidavit was filed, the report that was sought for by the BTC authorities from the police was still awaited and therefore, this Court had directed the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 to file appropriate affidavit to bring on record the police report. The police repo rt was brought on record by the respondent No.4 by filing an affidavit dated 23. 6.2011 in W.P.(C) No.2843 of 2011. The said report indicates that situation was normal and that there was no incident of any kind. 9. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioners had filed representation on 30.5.2011 itself after the time for submission of tender was over. There is no reason as to why the pe titioners would not submit their tenders. It is only because they were physicall y prevented by some miscreants, they were unable to participate in the tender pr ocess and interest of justice would demand that the process initiated by the not ice inviting tender dated 16.5.2011 be nullified and a fresh process be initiate d directing authorities to issue a fresh notice inviting tender. 10. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5, on the other hand, submits that adequate steps had been taken by way of depl oyment of security forces in order to prevent any untoward incident during the p rocess of submission of tender. He wondered as to why the petitioners had waited to submit their tenders till the last moment and he also questions the veracity of the statements of the writ petitioners that they were prevented from exercis ing their right to participate in the tender process. It also defies logic as to why, if there was really such a situation prevailing, they had not notified abo ut such incident before the tender box was sealed. He also strenuously urges the fact that the petitioners, even though had sought for time to file reply affida vit, ultimately chose not to deny the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposit ion filed by the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 and therefore, this Court should take the view that the petitioners have admitted the position as has emerged from the affidavit-in-opposition. He also contends that the allegations give rise to dis puted questions of fact which this Court should not embark upon to adjudicate. 11. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, though having not filed any affidavit, submitted that he fully endorsed the stand of the offic ial respondents and that the process initiated by the notice inviting tender dat ed 16.5.2011 be brought to its logical end. 12. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the materi als on record. This Court will not hazard a guess as to why the writ petitioners would voluntarily not submit tender as has been sought to be urged by Mr. Sarma . There are some admitted facts as would be demonstrated by the pleadings of the parties. From the materials on record, it would appear that there was deploymen t of police personnel in order to thwart any attempt by anti social elements to subvert the process of notice inviting tender. Though the notice inviting tender was dated 16.5.2011, Mt. Sarma submits that in fact it was published on 19.5.20 11. Be that as it may, for a period of more than ten (10) days, the tender box w as kept ready for the purpose of submission of tenders by the prospective tender ers. It is the stand of the respondents that there was no untoward incident duri ng the entire process of receipt of tenders. The police report submitted along w ith the affidavit dated 23.6.2011 is also pointer to the fact that there was no abnormal situation and in fact, there is assertion that there was no incident. I t is also not the case of the writ petitioners that beginning from 19.5.2011, th ey had tried to submit their tenders and were foiled in their attempts by miscre ants. Though the right of writ petitioners to submit tender even at the eleventh hour cannot be denied, in the context of the case, the said fact assumes signif icance and importance. Except for making a bald statement that the police person nel present pleaded helplessness, nothing has been brought on record as to whom they had approached. It is also not indicated to which police station they had g one to file FIR. Only averment made is that they had gone to a nearby police sta tion. Whether the writ petitioners were prevented during the time when they had gone to submit the tenders have given rise to facts which are disputed. Having r egard to the materials placed by the respondents, more particularly, by responde nt Nos.3,4 and 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the writ petitioners to interfere with the process of settlement ini tiated by the notice inviting tender dated 16.5.2011. 13. In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed. 14. The interim order, passed earlier, stands vacated. No cost.