MC 3608/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant (resp ondent No.3). Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.(wri t petitioner). Mr. G. Soren, learned Government Advocate appears for the officia l respondents. In this application for recall of the interim order passed by this Court on 3.11.2010, Mr. Goswami contends that the writ petitioner is not entitled to claim any price advantage over the respondent No.3 in the contract for supply of tricycle goods carrier to the Panchayat & Rural Development department. He poin ts out that the document at Annexure-1 of the writ petition relied upon to claim the price advantage by the writ petitioner, was signed only on 13.9.2010, where as the tenders were opened on 31.8.2010 and accordingly the said document could not have been considered by the settling authority, to give any price advantage to the writ petitioner. It is further pointed out that even if the writ petitioner was granted b enefit under the VAT to the maximum extent, the per unit bid offered by the resp ondent No.3 at Rs.14,135.10 (Rupees fourteen thousand one hundred thirty five an d ten paise) and Rs.14,155.10 (Rupees fourteen thousand one hundred fifty five a nd ten paise) would be the L-1 bids and the bid of the writ petitioner even then would be higher than that of respondent No.3. In view of the above and on perusal of the averments in the application, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for recall of the inter im order of 3.11.2010. Accordingly the Court’s interim order stands vacated. The Misc. case stands allowed. However supply made by the applicant (respondent No.3) in pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2010 is made subject to the result of the writ petition.