2025:JHHC:36574-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. Review No. 87 of 2024 ------ Vaidya V & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Represented through its authorized representative Vivek Vinayakrao Vaidya, Age 49 years, S/o Vnayak Rao Vaidya, R/o Plot No. 117, Nagar Vikas Society near Somal wara railway crossing, PO+ PS - Narendra Nagar, Pin 440015, District: Nagpur, State-Maharashtra …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Department, Nepal House. PO: Doranda, P.S Doranda, District: Ranchi 2. Managing Director, JMHIDPCL, PO: Namkum, PS: Namkum, District: Ranchi 3. M/s Magnatek Enterprises, having its office at 97 S.V.C Indl. Estate, Balsnagar, Hyderabad 500037 represented through its authorized sipndozy Pawan Kumar Singh, aged about 28 years, son of Shyam Sundar Singh, resident of village Phulang, P.O Pathra, P.S H.K bari, District Chatra Jharkhand. .... .... Respondents CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Praveen Chandra, Advocate Mr. Atul Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III : Mr. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate ------ 08/20.11.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant Civil Review has been filed for review of the order dated 01.11.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.6517 of 2022. 3. Petitioner tries to emphasize before this Court by filing this Civil Review Petition that the contract was a rate contract and cannot be related with quantity. He further submits that the respondents did not take any steps to issue further work orders after the initial order was passed, post disposal of the writ application. He submits that though the writ petition was allowed, but the observation made at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order is acting as hindrance to the petitioner. As per him the petitioner is eligible for a period of 2 years, which the respondents are not accepting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was supposed to get the contract to supply 10,92,000 packets per month, but the respondents only ordered the petitioner to supply 9,86,839 packets. 4. Learned counsel for the State and the private respondents deny and submits that the grounds put forth by the petitioner cannot be a ground for review. They submit that the petitioner has been allotted the work order of 2025:JHHC:36574-DB 2 substantial quantity and in fact, 9,86,839 packets amounting to Rs.2,36,05,188.88 was allowed to be supplied by the petitioner. It is their contention that it is incorrect to state that the quantity of 10,92,000 packets was to be supplied per month, rather, it was entire quantity of the contract period. 5. This is an application for review filed by the petitioner to review the final order passed in W.P.(C) No.6517 of 2022. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6517 of 2022 was allowed in favour of this petition on 01.11.2023. The petitioner was the lowest tenderer and had quoted the rate, which was accepted by the respondents. The rate was crystalised between the parties and the order was placed, but the same was later on withdrawn, which led to the writ petition. This Court found that the act of withholding the purchase order by the State was bad, thus directed the respondents to finalise the order in favour of the successful bidder. This Court also held that offer was valid till 22.11.2024. 6. After the said order was passed, respondents issued purchase order in favour of the petitioner. Dispute is that the petitioner claims that the petitioner should be issued orders to supply more quantity, which the respondents have declined. Further, though at page 57 of the Civil Review Application, it has been mentioned that 10,92,000 packets of sanitary napkins were to be supplied at district level every month, but page 61 of this Civil Review Application, which is Annexure XIV, clearly suggests that the total number of sanitary napkin pads, which were to be supplied was 10,92,000/-. The schedule clearly suggests that the said supply of quantity is for 12 months. Minute breakup of the supply is projected in the said document, which is a supply for one year. 7. The power of review and general principle to exercise the power of review has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal versus State Tax Officer (1) and Another reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362. It has been held that a review is not merely for the purpose of rehearing and fresh decision of the case. A judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. If the error is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, it cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review. An erroneous judgment cannot be reheard and corrected in a review jurisdiction. In the aforesaid judgment at paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation versus K.S. 2025:JHHC:36574-DB 3 Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.) [(2021) 3 SCC 1], has held as follows: - “15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.) [(2021) 3 SCC 1], held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 8. Further, in the case of Parsion Devi and Others versus Sumitri Devi and Others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that re-hearing in the matter for detecting the error of an earlier decision and correcting the same will not fall within the ambit of review jurisdiction. A review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment reads as under: - “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 9. It is well settled that review jurisdiction has to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, 2025:JHHC:36574-DB 4 as held earlier, we find that the petitioner is trying to reopen the entire issue and has argued the entire case on merit. He prays for some more benefit, which according to us, cannot be granted in review jurisdiction. Thus, this Civil Review Application is dismissed. Any interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Sandeep/Abha Uploaded 8.12.2025