2025:HHC:1128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.140 of 2024 Decided on: 06.01.2025 State of H.P. & others ...Petitioners Versus Harsh Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Nemo. G.S. Sandhawalia Chief Justice (Oral) Order dated 12.09.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench which comprised Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the then Chief Justice and Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge is sought to be reviewed. 2. The ground of review is that as per condition No.5 of the bid document the bidder who qualifies technical documents scrutiny is to be called for sampling demonstration before the Committee. The financial bid was to be opened only if the sample is approved by the tender technical committee. 2 3. Vide order dated 12.09.2024, which is sought to be reviewed, directions were issued to award the contract for supply of the surgical consumables to the petitioner along with other persons who were found qualified by the technical committee as mentioned above. Liberty was also given to the respondents to issue a fresh e-tender for more surgical consumables without affecting the right created in favour of the petitioner and other two successful tenderers. 4. We are of the considered opinion that the order under review was passed in open Court as is clear from the word ‘oral’ which is written against the name of the then Chief Justice and in presence of counsel for parties, and no such issue was then put forth. The Bench had found that the impugned proceedings dated 18.01.2024 cancelling the tender dated 19.08.2023 due to administrative reason, apparently was not justified as well as the consequential e- tender issued on 31.01.2024 which were accordingly set aside. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that no case for review is made out as the case cannot be allowed to be re-argued as such, as it was found by the 3 Bench that the writ petitioner is the only person who qualified the technical bid. Apparently on account of the fact that the respondents were not wanting to award the contract to him, the Court had to step in and protect his interest. In such circumstance, we do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge January 06, 2025 (vt)