A review petition under Section 114 CPC requires discovery of new, important evidence or an apparent error; mere dissatisfaction with the judgment does not qualify.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr.H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. A. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. J.R. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. By filing this instant review petition under Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Section 114 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the petitioners pray for review of the common Judgment & Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 76 & 77 of 2024.

2. Brief facts of the writ petition has been set out in paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the Judgment & Order dated 22.08.2024 and therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the same is being abstracted hereunder:-

“2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 floated NIT dated 10.11.2023 for Supply, Fixing, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) of LED Flood Light in Dampa Tiger Reserve Forest (DTRF) area from near BP No. - 2313 to near 2305/2-RI along Indo-Bangladesh Border in Mizoram State for approximate length of 60 Km. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 53,93,97,046.00 which is divided into two (2) parts namely, Part-A and Part-B. Part-A is for the execution of the work amounting to Rs. 47,57,00,082.00 and Part-B which is for the maintenance and amounting to Rs. 6,36,96,964.00. The completion period for the project is 15 months and the time given for operation of maintenance after handing over the project is 12 months. As per the NIT, the last date and time of submission of online tender was up to 26.12.2023 by 11 AM (IST). The technical bid was to be opened at 11:30 AM of 26.12.2023 and the date and time of opening of the financial bid was to be intimated later on.

3. Three (3) firms including the writ petitioners participated in the tender process and submitted their respective bids. The technical bid was opened on 26.12.2023 as was scheduled and it was then that, the petitioners came to learn about the deficiencies in the technical bid of the respondent No. 8. The petitioners therefore submitted their representations before the respondent authorities but despite assurance given to them as the grievance projected were not addressed and the respondent authorities proceeded to open the price bids on 12.01.2024. As per the price bids offer, the petitioners were found to be L3 while the private respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were placed at L1 and L2 respectively. Since the grievance projected by the petitioners was not addressed, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 434/2024 in the Principal Seat of this Court which on transfer has been renumbered as WP(C) No. 76/2024. During the pendency of the writ petition, since the respondent authorities have issued the Letter of Award (LOA) in favor of the respondent No. 8 on 30.01.2024, the petitioners filed their second writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 787/2024 which again on transfer to the Aizawl Bench has been renumbered as WP(C) No. 77/2024. This Court on 25.01.2024 while issuing notice of motion declined to pass any interim order but however observed that the work which was issued to the respondent No. 8 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Since the respondent No. 7 despite being L1 was not issued the LOA, the respondent No. 7 has failed to appear despite notice in WP(C) No. 76/2024 and consequently was struck off from the arrayed respondents vide order dated 09.04.2024 on the prayer of the counsel for the petitioners.”

3. This Court upon hearing the parties dismissed both the writ petition vide Judgment & Order dated 22.08.2024.

4. Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel by referring to the grounds of re