SUBHRADEEP CONSTRUCTION AND ANR SWARVANU SAHA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — WPA/7058/2026

Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 23-Mar-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0138362026

Filing Number

WPA/7057/2026

Filing Date

20-Mar-2026

Registration No

WPA/7058/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Residuary ( 26 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 27-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

No Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUBHRADEEP CONSTRUCTION AND ANR SWARVANU SAHA

  2. 2.SUBIR KUMAR BISWAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  2. 2.THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY

  3. 3.THE D.R.M. E.RLY.

  4. 4.THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER (SR. DCM), E.RLY

  5. 5.MALA ENTERPRISES

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Krishna RaoView PDF

    Summary The court dismissed Subhradeep Construction's writ petition challenging a parking plot tender auction. The petitioner claimed the tender was cancelled to favor a private respondent, but the court found that the petitioner's own bid of Rs. 99,28,222 exceeded their available bank balance of Rs. 1,71,000, causing the system to automatically reject their participation—thus no procedural irregularity occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Urgent Motion 1

    Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Krishna RaoView PDF

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 20-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/7058/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed Subhradeep Construction's writ petition challenging a parking plot tender auction. The petitioner claimed the tender was cancelled to favor a private respondent, but the court found that the petitioner's own bid of Rs. 99,28,222 exceeded their available bank balance of Rs. 1,71,000, causing the system to automatically reject their participation—thus no procedural irregularity occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case