1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New v. 1 - Lupin Gases Private Limit
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.10 10:31:53 +0530 2025:CGHC:11330-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 50 of 2025 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 2 - Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3 - The Principal Chief Materials Manager ( P.C.M.M. ) South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495001 4 - Chief Commercial Manager (1) Store South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.- 495001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lupin Gases Private Limited (A Private Limited Company) Lupin Gases Private Limited ( A Private Limited Company ) Having Its Registered Office At R-P 8, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492007, And Factory At Plot No. 811/812, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through- Its Authorised Signatory B.P. Sahu, General Manager. 2 - South Eastern Central Railway Through- Its General Manager, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra and Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. udit Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this review petition against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 5768/2024, whereby this Court has allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein by quashing the fresh e-tender No. 08241051A dated 21.10.2024, with the direction to consider the present respondent’s offer / negotiated rates for procurement of 222731 CuM of Dissolved Acetylene Gas, pursuant to previous Tender No. 08241051 dated 05.08.2024 for the SECR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court have not grossly erred to consider the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case. The return/affidavit to the writ petition filed by present petitioners are not appreciated while passing the judgment/order particularly that the tender was not in two parts which is nowhere written or admitted. This Court has also not 3 appreciated that 20% work order has already been issued to the L1- M/s SRK GAS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED- SATNA and it has been ordered to consider the respondent's offer/negotiated rates for procurement of 222731 Cum of Dissolved Acetylene Gas, pursuant to previous Tender No.08241051 dated 05/08/2024 for the SECR. Further, this Court has mentioned in para no. 11 of judgment/order dated 03.02.2025 that, "The tender committee has compared his rate with last purchase rate in the year 2023 for the same item which is completely baseless and irrelevant". It is humbly submitted that; tender committee has not only compared the previous year's purchase rate of South East Central Railways but also compared rates of recent purchase orders of other zonal railways. M/s. LUPIN GASES PVT LTD-RAIPUR is continuously supplying same item to South east central railways since 2023 at the same total unit rate which was counter offered to M/s. LUPIN GASES PVT LTD-RAIPUR. Therefore, the Tender committee gave counter offer to M/s. LUPIN GASES PVT LTD-RAIPUR so that public's money can be saved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the matter of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action. "94. The principles deducible from the above are: 4 (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles." 5. We have perused the impugned order under review. 5 6. It appears that the petitioners by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 7. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 8. The grounds raised by review petitioners in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692 6 impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet