IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that review powers are limited to correcting errors, not re-evaluating merits, and dismissed the review petition for lack of merit.

JUDGMENT :

The instant review petition is preferred seeking review of an Order dated 01.10.2024, whereby, a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 10/2024 after hearing, has been disposed of with certain observations and directions. It is relevant to mention that in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 10/2024, the present review petitioner was the writ petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. Imti Imsong, learned State counsel for all the respondents.

3. Before dilating on the grounds on which the instant review petition is preferred, it appears appropriate to extract the contents of the Order dated 01.10.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 10/2024, for better appreciation, :-

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a registered supplier and contractor and has earned its reputation in execution of small hydro electric project, design, supply, erection, commissioning, total building management system, testing, servicing of power plants, etc. and it has the experience of executing a number of hydro project works in various parts of the country.

2.1. On 09.12.2015, the office of the Chief Engineer [T&G], Department of Power, Nagaland [the respondent no. 4] published a Short Notice Inviting Tender [SNIT] inviting sealed bids from reputed Manufacturers, Authorized Distributors and Engineering Procurement and Construction [EPC] Contractors for construction of ‘Ponglefo Hydro Electric Project’ [‘the Project’, for short] at Salomi village under Kiphire District of Nagaland at an approximate cost of Rs. 16.00 crores. In response to the SNIT which was widely published in the local newspapers, the petitioner along with others submitted its sealed bid. After evaluation, the petitioner was selected and was awarded an Work Order dated 06.02.2016 for construction of the Project, that is, Ponglefo Hydro Electric Project, 2 x 500 kw and the petitioner was directed to execute a Contract Agreement within 15 days from the date of issue of the Work Order. A Contract Agreement was thereafter, executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 on behalf of the Government of Nagaland on 14.03.2016 after complying with all the formalities. The details of the Project was set forth in the said Contract Agreement. After issuance of the Work Order and the execution of the Contract Agreement, the petitioner proceeded to execute the Project, Ponglefo Hydro Electric Project in a remote area in Kiphire District which does not have proper road connectivity and other infrastructure.

2.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the hardships and difficulties faced by it apart from unprecedented monsoon rains and natural calamities, the petitioner was able to complete the Project, Ponglefo Hydro Electric Project. The petitioner has asserted that the Ponglefo Hydro Electric Project was successfully erected, tested and technically commissioned on 27.08.2020. After completion of the Project, the petitioner had intimated the respondent authorities regarding completion of the Project vide a Letter dated 30.11.2022 with a request to make payment of its outstanding bill amount against the Project.

2.3. When the respondent authorities failed to pay the outstanding bill amount, the petitioner stated to have sent reminders on 03.04.2023 and 19.05.2023 for payment of the outstanding bill amount. When despite the reminders, the respondent authorities failed to make the payment, the petitioner sent a Legal Notice on 30.10.2023 to the respondent authorities demanding payment of the outstanding bill amount within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice.

2.3. In response to the Legal Notice, the petitioner was furnished a copy of the Letter dated 22.11.2023 sent by the respondent no. 4 to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Power [the respondent no. 2] inviting attention of the respondent no. 2 that a proposal was already submitted for provisionin