Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.04 17:37:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:38335-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 194 of 2025 Varsha Infra, A Partnership Firm Having Its H.O. At H.N.2, Ward-39, Vardhman Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Through Its Partners Dilip Kumar Jain S/o Shri Meghraj Jain, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of H.N. 2, Ward-39, Vardhman Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department Shivnath Bhavan, Sector-19 Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mool Chand Jain, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 04.08 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Mool Chand Jain, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 2. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “a. grant review petition of the petitioner against the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Court passed in WPC No. 3348 of 2025 dated 02.07.2025 and allow the Prayer made in the Writ Petition(C). b. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness the petitioner is duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition for review are as follows: The petitioner Firm, Varsha Infra, was constituted by the ex-partners of M/s B.L. Jain, Rajnandgaon, following their retirement from the said firm. M/s B.L. Jain, Rajnandgaon was a registered ‘A’ Class contractor with the Public Works Department (PWD) and possessed a valid Pre-Qualification Certificate (PQ Certificate) issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. Based on the experience of the partners in M/s B.L. Jain, the petitioner Firm was granted registration by the PWD on 29.07.2024, effective from 27.07.2024 to 26.07.2029. Further, a PQ Certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Water Resources Department on 06.11.2024, 3 valid till 30.09.2025 and on the basis of such registration and PQ Certificate, the Water Resources Department awarded a work contract to the petitioner for Remodelling and Lining of Canal, vide work order dated 17.01.2025. Despite the above, the petitioner’s PQ Certificate was cancelled on 21.05.2025 without affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had submitted bids for five tenders floated on 02.04.2025, 04.04.2025, and 06.04.2025; however, the same were not considered owing to the cancellation of the PQ Certificate. 4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of the PQ Certificate was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 02.07.2025 in WPC No. 3348 of 2025, primarily relying on the judgment dated 08.05.2023 passed in WPC No. 2860 of 2021 (M/s Kanshik Buildcon v. State of C.G. & Others). The petitioner has not filed any other petition against the said order dated 02.07.2025 before any other Court. The facts and legal issues involved in the present case are distinct and materially different from those in the judgments relied upon by this Court, and thus, the ratio of those judgments cannot be mechanically applied to the petitioner’s case. The Court, while passing the order dated 02.07.2025, has failed to consider the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478; as well as those of the jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Rathi v. Union of India & Anr., WPC No. 6724 4 of 2006, and the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in M/s C.K. Asati v. Union of India & Others, (2005) Arb. W.L.J. 324 (M.P.). 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the Court, while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 02.07.2025, has failed to consider grounds Nos. 9.4 and 9.5 of the writ petition and Clause 10.1 of the "Relief", which specifically assailed the arbitrary and illegal cancellation of the petitioner’s valid Pre- Qualification Certificate (PQ Certificate), despite the fact that the petitioner had already submitted bids in response to tenders issued on 02.04.2025, 04.04.2025, and 06.04.2025 on the strength of the said valid certificate. These material aspects go to the root of the controversy but have not been addressed in the impugned order. He further submits that the reliance placed by this Hon’ble Court on the judgment passed in the case of M/s Kanshik Buildcon, Raipur v. State of C.G. & Others, WPC No. 2860 of 2021, is wholly misplaced, as the facts of that case are materially different from those in the present matter. In Kanshik Buildcon (supra), the petitioner therein had submitted the PQ Certificate of an old firm, Kaushik Enterprises, and no separate PQ Certificate had been issued to the new entity Kaushik Buildcon by the tendering department. The issue of joint venture or consortium arose there due to the lack of continuity and declaration, which is absent in the present case and in contrast, the petitioner firm herein was independently issued a PQ Certificate by the Water Resources Department, Government of 5 Chhattisgarh, which remained valid up to 30.09.2025. The petitioner participated in the tenders based on this valid PQ Certificate, and hence, the question of reliance on the experience or certification of any predecessor firm does not arise. The cancellation of the PQ Certificate after tender submission, without affording a hearing, was arbitrary and illegal, violating principles of natural justice. It has been contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of New Horizons Ltd. (supra), has clearly held (at page 492, para 23) that experience of the individuals or entities who form a new partnership or reorganized company cannot be disregarded merely because the new entity does not have experience in its own name. The Hon’ble Apex Court recognized scenarios involving reorganization, merger, split, or change in constitution, and emphasized that the substance of experience must prevail over form: “It is possible to visualize a situation where a person having past experience has entered into a partnership and the tender has been submitted in the name of the partnership firm which may not have any past experience in its own name... The requirement regarding experience does not mean that the offer of the original must be considered because it has experience in its name though it does not have experienced persons with it and ignore the offer of the new company because it does not have experience in its name though it has persons having experience in the field.” 6. It has been argued by Mr. Jain that the petitioner’s case is 6 squarely covered by the ratio of New Horizons Ltd. (supra), and also finds support from the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Rathi (supra) and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s C.K. Asati (supra) as these binding precedents mandate recognition of the substantive experience of individuals forming new entities. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Kanshik Buildcon (supra) is entirely inapplicable to the present factual matrix and cannot be relied upon to deny relief to the petitioner. The present case stands on a different legal footing and deserves reconsideration. As such, the review petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No.3348/2025 may be recalled/reviewed. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocate General opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and submits that the review petition is nothing but an attempt to reargue the matter which has already been adjudicated upon on merits by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 in WPC No. 3348 of 2025. The grounds raised in the present petition do not satisfy the parameters laid down for maintainability of a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). He further submits that no error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out by the petitioner warranting review of the well-reasoned judgment. Mere disagreement with the conclusions arrived at by the Court or the 7 reliance placed on binding precedent does not constitute a ground for review. It has been submitted that the reliance placed on New Horizons Ltd. (supra) is misplaced, as the said judgment pertains to facts involving merger or split of companies and is distinguishable from the present case. In the instant matter, the petitioner firm has failed to establish any formal continuity or legal succession from M/s B.L. Jain in accordance with the applicable tender conditions or guidelines issued by the Water Resources Department. It has been submitted that the case of M/s Kanshik Buildcon (supra), relied upon by this Court in the impugned order, is directly applicable. In that case too, the petitioner sought to rely on the experience or PQ of an earlier entity without legal recognition of a joint venture, consortium, or continuity, and the Court rightly held that such reliance was impermissible. The PQ Certificate was cancelled by the competent authority in exercise of administrative discretion based on evaluation of the eligibility criteria, and such cancellation cannot be termed as arbitrary merely because it affected the petitioner’s ability to participate in subsequent tenders. The tender process is governed by strict norms to ensure fairness, transparency, and level playing field. It has been argued that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any manifest injustice or violation of fundamental rights that would require the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to be exercised again through a review. The scope of review is narrow and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. Therefore, in absence of any 8 patent error, fraud, or omission of a material fact that goes to the root of the matter, the review petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order under review. 9. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Advocate General, and after a careful examination of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present review petition. 10. It is well-settled that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is limited and can be invoked only when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, or when a material fact, which would have had a bearing on the decision, has been overlooked by the Court. A review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be entertained merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the outcome of the original judgment or seeks to reargue the matter on merits. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such error or omission that would justify the exercise of review jurisdiction by this Court. The contentions raised in the present petition were either already considered and dealt with in the original order dated 02.07.2025 or do not meet the threshold required for invoking review. 12. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of the 9 Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd. (supra), and other cited cases, has been duly noted. However, this Court finds that the factual matrix in the present case is distinct from the precedents relied upon, and the conclusion reached in the original order, based on the ratio of M/s Kanshik Buildcon (supra), cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting review. This Court further observed that the issue of cancellation of the PQ Certificate was within the domain of administrative discretion of the competent authority, and there is nothing on record to suggest that such action was either arbitrary or actuated by mala fides. The petitioner’s grievance, even if assumed to be genuine, cannot be redressed through the limited jurisdiction of review. 13. 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 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 10 and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 14. The grounds raised by review petitioner 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 impugned order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 15. In view of the foregoing, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692