2025:JHHC:27077-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 16 of 2024 --------- M/s Vijay Bhadhur Thapa Security Agency through it’s authorized representative Om Prakash Singh, aged about 27 years, S/o Akhilesh Singh, R/o Village Saya, P.O. & P.S. Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad, Bihar-824301. ..… Petitioner Versus 1. Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDI) through General Manager (CMC), Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Union of India through Chief Executive Officer, Government E Market Place (GeM), 3rd Floor, Jeewan Bharti Building, Tower-2, Connaught Circus, P.O.+P.S. Sansad Marg, District- New Delhi 3. C.D.O. Securities and Public Helpline Service through its Managing Director, having its office at Shop No. B1/26, Vijay Basant Commercial Complex, GE Road, behind Pragya Hospital, Power House, Camp-2, P.O.+P.S.-Bhillai, District- Durg, State-Chhattisgarh. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. For the Resp.-CMPDIL : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv A.C. to Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv. For Resp. No.3. : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv. 2/08.09.2025 Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CMPDI as well as Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. This review application has been preferred by the petitioner for review of the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2024. 3. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 13.8 the terms and conditions of the tender has not been considered as the same clearly indicates that if the confirmatory documents do not 2025:JHHC:27077-DB 2 change eligibility status of the bidder in connection with the submitted online information/declaration, the bid has to be accepted for opening. 4. Learned counsel submits that the financial status of the writ petitioner was not uploaded though the same was mentioned in the tender document and in terms of Clause 13.2 of the terms and conditions of the tender, it was incumbent upon the concerned respondents to grant a grace period of 7 days for online re-submission of any shortcomings which have been found in the bid which has been submitted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the CMPDI has submitted that this argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner and in fact the order of which the review has been sought for deals with the relevant provisions of the terms and conditions of the contract. 6. It has been submitted that though Clause 13.2 of the tender document does indicate that for completing the shortcomings, the 7 days period has to be granted to the bidder but the same is subject to the provisions of Clause 13.6 of the Tender document which again restricts the bidder to fulfilling the shortcomings. Learned counsel therefore, submits that there has been no error on the face on record and therefore this review application is not maintainable. 7. Mr. Subham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the work order was given for a period of two years and only 3 months of the said period are left at the present moment. 8. The entire dispute is with respect to the submission of online bidding form by the petitioner and since certain shortcomings including the financial capability of the petitioner was not uploaded in view of Clause 13.2 of the 2025:JHHC:27077-DB 3 terms and conditions of the tender it has been stated that it was incumbent on the part the concerned authority to grant the period of seven days permitting the bidder to upload the necessary documents and remove the shortcomings. 9. While rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10 of 2024 vide order dated 23.01.2024, this Court had also taken into consideration the conditions as enumerated in Clause 13.6 of the tender document which acts as a rider to the provision of Clause 13.2. Though it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that clause 13.8 of the tender document was not taken into consideration, but it seems from the order date 23.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2024 that the financial standing of the bidder having not been uploaded has also been taken into consideration and the Court had come to a conclusion that merely taking recourse to Clause 13.2 of the tender document would not facilitate the claim of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error on the face of the record to entail us to review the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2024 and consequently, having found no merit in this review application, the same stands dismissed. Pending I.A. if any also stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/vikas