A party not impleaded in a writ petition may seek review if they claim to be aggrieved by an order violating principles of natural justice, as the power of review is essential for justice.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. On a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 17.02.2024, the matter has been placed before us for consideration.

3. The question referred is as to whether a person affected or aggrieved by an order/judgment, if not impleaded in the writ petition, can take recourse to the remedy of review;claiming violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Before answering the reference, this Court deems it proper to give the short facts for proper appreciation of the matter. Respondent no.7 was aggrieved by the decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee treating his tender to be not responsive to the requirements of the bid document. The petitioner’s bid, for construction of a PCC road, was declared unsuccessful and disqualified in terms of Clause 19(4)(e) of the NIT No. 09/2022-2023, which was challenged in CWJC No. 814 of 2023. The main ground of challenge was that though the terms of the NIT required the technical bid to be opened on 06.08.2022 and the financial bid on 15.08.2022; the official respondents proceeded to open both the Technical Bid and Financial Bid on 06.08.2022, in complete defiance of the terms of the tender notice. A Division Bench vide order dated19.04.2023 found that something ‘fishy’ (sic) had transpired and set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after maintaining all the relevant records.

5. Two of the bidders, who were declared successful in respect of subject matter of NIT No. 09/2022-2023 and in whose favour the work orders were issued, being prejudiced by the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in CWJC 814 of 2023, filed Civil Review No. 131 of 2023 in CWJC No. 814 of 2023.

6. The contention of the two successful bidders were that their rights were affected by virtue of the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in CWJC 814 of 2023, in which the review petitioners were not impleaded. It is contended on their behalf that they were successful bidders and the work orders were allotted to them and, as such, they were necessary parties. The order was passed without hearing them and hence the prayer for review. The Division Bench took note of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 and Rama Rao & Ors Vs. M.G. Maheshwara Rao and Ors. reported in (2007) 14 SCC 54 and held the Civil Review petition to be not maintainable. The Division Bench considering the review observed that:

“The same principle has been reiterated to the extent that if the third party right is affected by virtue of any order passed in a writ petition in that event he or she has remedy of filing writ petition and not in filing review petition. Obviously, for the reasons that scope of review petition is limited to the extent whether any error apparent on the face of the record with reference to order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. If writ petition is filed then the scope would be beyond the criteria insofar as filing review petition”

7. The Civil Review came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2023 giving liberty to the review petitioners to file a fresh writ petition insofar as questioning the validity or seeking for recalling of the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in CWJC No. 814 of 2023.

8. The review petitioners, in terms of the liberty, as noted hereinabove, preferred CWJC No. 622 of 2024. Another Division Bench, which considered the matter on 17.02.2024 opined that judicial discipline mandates following the earlier judgment of a Coordinate Bench and thus it cannot ta