Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010110842025 2025:GAU-AS:7591 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./85/2025 M/S TANOR ENGINEERING AND ANR. A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN FIRM HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT P- SECTOR, ITANAGAR, P/O. AND P/S. ITANAGAR, DIST. PAPUMPARE-791111, ARUNACHAL PRADESH. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. DILING TATAK- THE PETETIONER NO. 2. 2: DILING TATAK S/O. TAGOM TATAK R/O. P-SECTOR ITANAGAR P/O. AND P/S. ITANAGAR DIST. PAPUMPARE PIN-791111 ARUNACHAL PRADESH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (NH WORKS) ASSAM. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781003. Page No.# 2/12 3:BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN- THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (NH WORKS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 4:THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS REP. BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHNADMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-03 5:SANJAY KUMAR SINGH A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN PROPRIETOR- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O. OF LT. BALRAM SINGH R/O. CHIRWAPATTY ROAD TINSUKIA P/O. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-78612 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K J SAIKIA, MR. R K MAHANTA,MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, FOR CAVEATOR,MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER(CAV) Date : 11-06-2025 Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners assisted by Mr. K.J. Saikia, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3. 2. The review petitioners have prayed for review of the impugned judgment Page No.# 3/12 and order dated 16.05.2025 passed in WP(C) 2068/2025 on three grounds. Firstly, there is a mistake in paragraph-32 of the judgment and order, where this Court has inadvertently held that there was no reason for the Court to interfere with two out of the three reasons given by the respondents for disqualifying the petitioners’ technical bid. As this Court, in the said impugned judgment and order, had already set aside two out of the three reasons for disqualifying the petitioners’ technical bid, instead of the word “two” in the second line of paragraph-32, the word should be read as “one”. Secondly, the State respondents never asked the petitioners to make a clarification with regard to the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024. Thirdly, though this Court had held in the impugned judgment and order that there was no reason to disagree with the findings of the State respondents that the petitioners Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 referred to only one Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting), the petitioners had obtained a price breakup dated 16.05.2025 in relation to the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024, after the impugned judgment and order had been passed, which was to the effect that the Tax Invoice was issued in relation to two Air Compressors, 1 Air Compressor was Trolley Mounted, while another Air Compressor was Tractor Mounted, which were bought by the petitioners at the rate of Rs.35,00/-and Rs.1,30,000/- respectively. The review petitioners’ counsel submits that the said errors being apparent on the face of record and as the breakup showed that the petitioners had 2 Air Compressors and not one Air Compressor, the impugned judgment and order should be reviewed, by recalling the impugned judgment and order and allowing the writ petition. 3. Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 submits that even if it is assumed that no clarification was asked for by the State respondents, the petitioners in their representation dated 05.04.2025, which is Page No.# 4/12 at Annexure-I of the writ petition, had made a clarification, vide Clarification-1 to the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024, wherein no breakup was submitted. Mr. P. Nayak further submits that just because the review petitioners do not agree with the views of the Court, as reflected in the impugned judgment and order, the same does not mean that a case for review has been made out, only because of a difference of opinion. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. While considering the submissions made by the counsels for the review petitioners, this Court had noticed that the review petitioners have quoted paragraph-22 of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 with regard to the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024, which according to the petitioners proved that two Air Compressors had been bought on the basis of the said Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024. 6. The extract of paragraph-22 which has been quoted by the petitioners in Ground-B of the review petition is to the following effect – “…In fact, the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 only speaks of "1 Set" Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting). If the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 was in relation to 2 Air Compressors, then it would have been in relation to 2 different type of Air Compressors (trolley Mounting). It could not have been in relation to 2 different types of Air Compressors.” 7. The relevant extract of paragraph-22, as provided in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court states as follows : “…In fact, the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 only speaks of "1 Set" Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting). If the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 was in relation to 2 Air Compressors, then it would have been in relation to 2 Air Page No.# 5/12 Compressors (trolley Mounting). It could not have been in relation to 2 different types of Air Compressors.” 8. A comparison of the above extracts of paragraph-32 of the impugned judgment and order, clearly goes to show that the word “different” has been used only once in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court. However, in the quoted extract of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 in Ground-B of the review petition, the word “different” has been used twice, thereby apparently changing the context of one sentence of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2025. 9. Be that as it may, let us go into the issues raised by the petitioners with regard to the mistake in paragraph-32 of the impugned judgment and order. It is clear that there has been a typographical error in paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment and order, when reading the judgment and order as a whole, inasmuch as, the word “two” in paragraph-32 should actually be “one”. As such, the word “two” in paragraph-32 of the impugned judgment and order should be read as “one”. 10. With regard to the second ground of challenge made to the impugned judgment and order, that the State respondents had never asked the petitioners to make a clarification in relation to Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the letter dated 05.04.2025 addressed to the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works) by the petitioners (Annexure-I of the writ petition), wherein a clarification has been made in paragraph-1 of the said letter, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “1. The bidder has shown documentary evidence of only one Air Compressor, against requirement of 2 (two) nos of air compressor as Page No.# 6/12 per REP. Clarification :- Sir we have submitted Invoice of One Set Clearly mentioning trolly mounted and also Sale Certificate where mentioned of Tractor Mounted, (TECH-II Pg No 29 & Pg No 30) therefore we state that it is 2 Nos of Compressor attached to the TRACTOR. Our pricing of both Trolly mounted (Rs.35,000/- and Tractor mounted (Rs.1,30,000) total amount come to Rs.1,65,000/- Excluding GST (18%)” 11. Even it is assumed that there was no clarification sought for by the State respondents, it is very much clear that the petitioners had given a clarification with regard to Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 in terms of the above extract, which was not accepted by the respondents. 12. The petitioners’ third ground was that the price breakup dated 16.05.2025 obtained in relation to the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024, showed that the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024, was in relation to two Air Compressors, one being Trolley Mounted, while the other was Tractor Mounted. This Court, on considering the above price breakup dated 16.05.2025, has noticed that the same has been obtained on 16.05.2025 as per paragraph-3(C) of the review petition, after the impugned judgment and order was passed. This price breakup dated 16.05.2025, in the view of this Court, appears to be an afterthought, as the price breakup dated 16.05.2025 had not been provided along with the clarification made by the petitioners on 05.04.2025. The said breakup not having been submitted earlier and the fact that it does not appear to be in consonance with the Tax Invoice, the same cannot be accepted by this Court. However, this would not bar the authorities from examining the said issue as per their discretion. Page No.# 7/12 13. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph nos. 21 and 22, as follows : “21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justiciae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. 22. The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.” 14. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Sengupta (supra), mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is Page No.# 8/12 not a sufficient ground for review. Further, party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within their knowledge and even after exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. In the present case, the State respondents having taken the stand that the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 and other documents not having shown that the petitioners had two Air Compressors, the petitioners had all the time in the world to make a clarification on the said issue, by submitting a similar document which they have now submitted for the first time in the review petition, i.e. price breakup dated 16.05.2025. However, instead of showing that the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 was in relation to two different types of Air Compressors, the petitioners had only submitted a clarification, which in my view and the view of the author of the tender did not show or prove that the petitioners had two Air Compressors. 15. In the case of S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the earlier principles laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 wherein the principles relating to review are laid down, which are extracted herein below as follows: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; Page No.# 9/12 (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” Page No.# 10/12 16. On considering the facts of this case, this Court has found no reason to disagree with the view taken by the authorities, regarding the number of Air compressors that the petitioners had, while considering the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 and the clarification made by the petitioners. Though the petitioners have now tried to explain that the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 pertains to two Air Compressors, one Trolley Mounted and one Tractor Mounted, by submitting a price breakup dated 16.05.2025 which the petitioners had obtained after the passing of the impugned judgment and order, this Court is of the view that the same is an afterthought and the correctness of the price breakup cannot be accepted by this Court at the drop of a hat. The said price breakup being a factual issue and not having been produced by the petitioners during the writ Court proceedings or before the respondents earlier, this Court cannot accept the said price breakup as proof of the petitioners having two Air Compressors. However, the same would not bar the State respondents from re-considering the said issue, which is left entirely to their discretion. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of S Madhusudhan Reddy (supra), mere possibility of two views on a subject cannot be a ground for review. Further, this Court does not find that there is any material error, manifest on the face of the impugned judgment and order, which undermines it’s soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. This Court also does not find that there is any error on the face of the record and the manner in which the review is being sought, requires going into the merits of the price breakup which is not reflected in the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 17. In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Supreme Court has held that though the Constitution Bench held in Shivdeo Singh(supra) that nothing in Page No.# 11/12 Article 226 of the Constitution precludes a High Court from exercising the power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court. 18. In the present case, this Court finds that the petitioners could have produced a price breakup in support of their stand that the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 was in relation to two Air Compressors at the time of submission of their bid or at the time of submission of their clarification. However, even during the time the petitioners had submitted their clarification on 05.04.2025, no such document had been produced. Assuming that the price breakup proves that the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 was in relation to the two Air Compressors, the same not having been produced at the relevant point of time, it cannot be said that there was any infirmity with the decision of the respondents, in coming to a finding that the petitioners had only one Air Compressor, based on the tax invoice. The same also shows that the petitioners have not exercised due diligence. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that no Page No.# 12/12 case for review has been made out. 19. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant