Madhya Pradesh High Court
Firm Nandkishor Kushwah Having Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 3 October, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28927
1 RP-860-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 860 of 2024
FIRM NANDKISHOR KUSHWAH HAVING THROUGH ITS PROP.
NANDKISHOR KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri H.Y. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents
No.1 to 4/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present review petition has been filed by the review/petitioner for
recalling of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition No.5601 of 2024.
The petition filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of E-
Tender submitted by him in respect of supply of food grains, vegetables,
sanitation, stationery, building construction materials and other materials etc
in Central Jail, Indore and District Jail, Indore for the financial year 2023-
2024 has been rejected on the ground of non-compliance of tender condition
No.10(viii). The condition of Clause 10(viii) of Tender form requires the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28927
2 RP-860-2024
Tenderer to submit the copy of valid license under the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006.
A specific stand was taken by the respondents in their return along
with E-Tender Form incomplete copy of the license was filed. There was no
rebuttal to that and no assertion that the complete copy of license was filed
along with E-Tender. Further it is held in para 6 that word 'license' has to be
interpreted to mean "complete copy of license."
Admittedly, only the first page of license was filed. Review/Recall is
sought on the ground that the petitioner has handed over the complete copy
of license to the counsel for petitioner but the same was not filed by the
counsel and therefore the order requires to be reviewed or recalled. In respect
of that, he has placed reliance over the judgment of Board of Control for
Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others reported in (2005) 4
Supreme Court Cases 741 (Para 90 & 93 ) and further the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Juber vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others in Review Petition No.612 of 2021 decided on
17.08.2021. It is further submitted that Division Bench relying the judgment
of Apex Court in the cases of Moinuddin and BCCI (supra).
Considering the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid
contention firstly that there is no affidavit of counsel represented the
petitioner in the writ petition and that the complete copy of license was
handed over to the petitioner. Upon perusal of the review petition, we also do
not find any averment that complete copy of license was filed along with E-
Tender before the respondents. The judgment which has been relied by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28927
3 RP-860-2024
counsel for petitioner would not render any assistance to the facts of the
present case. In the judgment of Moinuddin which has been relied by the
Division Bench in the case of Juber has dealt with the case of Habeas Corpus
petition and it is held that if there is insufficient pleading, the review can be
entertained. The judgment passed in the case of BCCI (supra) in para 90, the
Apex Court has considered the word "sufficient reason" for reviewing of the
order and held that word 'sufficient reason' would depend on the facts of the
present case.
Thus, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record
warranting any interference in exercise of review power. It is well settled that
cases are heard and decided only once. To make a departure from this
statutory rule, review application must strictly fall within the established
parameters. In the light of settled principle of law in my considered opinion,
there is no merit and substance in the review application as in a review,
Court has very limited circumscribed by definitive limits.
Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
