The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.99 of 2024 (An application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited represented though its Executive Engineer, Sonepur -versus- … Petitioner M/s. Swosti Powercon, Bargarh & Others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Panigrahi, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Mishra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32512 of 2023. RVWPET No.99 of 2024 Page 1 of 7 2. In the course of hearing of review petition, Mr.Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court at paragraph-12 of the judgment which is sought to be reviewed has stated that the present review-petitioner and OP No.3 have only considered the 1st note of the license and ignored the 2nd note therein, but they should have taken note of conjointly both the notes stated in the license and should have gone through the Website to find out the correctness of the license as submitted by the writ- petitioner, but fact remains that the aforesaid notes being eligibility conditions are to be considered by the writ-petitioner while uploading his documents in the Website and the review-petitioner and OP No.3 have no role in going through such notes conjointly and, therefore, the same being an error apparent on record,
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :28.02.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:28.02.2025 By the Bench. 1. This is a review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the “CPC”) by the petitioner praying to review the judgment dated 05.03.2024
Decision
the impugned judgment is required to be reviewed and recalled on this point. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the review-petitioner upon perusal of the averments taken in the review petition, since the review petition has RVWPET No.99 of 2024 Page 2 of 7 been filed to review the impugned judgment, this Court reiterates that a review petition can be admitted in exercise of power U/S. 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, provided the party applying for review of the judgment/order must satisfy the Court any of the three grounds, such as:- (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party applying for review or could not be produced by him at the time, when the decree was passed or order made, (ii) for some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, (iii) for any other sufficient reasons. On going through the averments taken in the review-petition, this Court finds that the review- petitioner has filed the review petition for review of the judgment mainly on the ground that consideration of this Court to pass the judgment sought to be reviewed is on the basis of the notes appended to the license, but the same being prescribed as eligibility criteria, it was for the writ-petitioner to go through such notes and up-load his documents and, therefore, the RVWPET No.99 of 2024 Page 3 of 7 aforesaid observation of the Court is an error apparent on record which is to be rectified by way of review of the judgment passed in the writ petition. For clarity and better understanding, this Court now extracts the main averments of the review-petition by which the review- petitioner seeks for review of the judgment passed in the writ petition. The aforesaid averments as stated by the review-petitioner in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the review petition are as under:- “4. That this Hon’ble Court while interpreting the said contention has been pleased to held that the permit of Muketendu of Lineman MV which was noted in the document uploaded in the website is valid till 27.08.2022 but this petitioner did not consider the 2nd note. It is further held that this petitioner should have taken note of both the notes conjointly, much less the website as stated in the 2nd note to find out of the correctness of the license. 5. That this petitioner further humbly submits that the license revision record is downloaded by the Opp. Party and after downloaded the same it was uploaded before the petitioner being the tendering authority. It is humbly submitted that, it is onerous duty of the Opp. Party to go through the website as stated in the note-II and after being downloaded the correct copy, the same should have been uploaded along with the bid documents. The note is not meant for the petitioner to rectifying the same. It is RVWPET No.99 of 2024 Page 4 of 7 only meant for the Opp. Party check/verify with official website and uploaded the verified copy. 6. That it is further humbly submits that the present petitioner has only to verify the documents which have been uploaded at the time of assessing the eligibility in the matter opening of tender. Clause-2.15 of DTCN clearly reflects that the bidder must go through the Bid documents meticulously before uploading the tender to the website. Therefore it is an incomplete Bid and if the same shall be allowed to stand it will amount of failure of justice. 7. That the petitioner further humbly submits that the aforesaid error is not a discovery of new important matter of facts or evidence. The error is apparent on the document so submitted in the counter at Para-7 & 8. In the said error shall not be corrected it may lead to failure of justice.” face of the 4. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid averments on the backdrop of the submission as advanced for the petitioner, this Court does not find anything to hold that there was an error apparent on the face of record, but when the plea of the review- petitioner is considered on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed, nowhere it is found that there is an error apparent on record. In the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, RVWPET No.99 of 2024 Page 5 of 7 drawn attention of the Court to paragraph-12 of the judgment passed in the writ petition wherein this Court has observed as under:- “The OP No.2(OP No.3 in review petition) and OP No.3(review-petitioner) have only considered the first note of the license and ignored the second note. Therefore, the opposite parties should have taken note of conjointly both the notes mentioned in the license and should have gone through the Website to find out the correctness of the license submitted by the petitioner.” 5. The aforesaid observation of this Court clearly spells out the fact that at the time of scrutiny, the authority concerned who has issued the tender notification should verify the documents, but not the bidder because in any event, the Tender issuing Authority will award the work, if it found the tender documents to be valid, but without verification, the Tender Authority cannot saddle the liability on the bidder to verify its documents for getting the work/contract awarded in his favour. The aforesaid observation made by this Court clearly reveals about the negligence of the Tender issuing Authority to go through the Website to find out the correctness of the RVWPET No.99 of 2024 Page 6 of 7 license submitted by the writ petitioner. In the circumstance, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record so as to review the judgment passed in the writ petition. 6. Resultantly, the review petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, no order as to costs. (DR. S.K. PANIGRAHI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2025 17:30:37 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 28th day of February, 2025/Kishore RVWPET No.99 of 2024 Page 7 of 7