The process of judicial review does not permit re-examination of factual disputes regarding tender eligibility absent clear evidence of fraud or error, reinforcing public interest in tender integrity.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The instant application has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 04.05.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C)/2049/2023.

2. There is a chequered history in this case. Suffice it to mention that the applicant, as writ petitioner had put to challenge an order dated 28.06.2023 issued by the National Health Mission (hereinafter, NHM) allotting a work to the respondent no. 4 which is termed as Service Level Agreement (SLA). The aforesaid work was allotted pursuant to a tender process mooted vide a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 01.10.2022 which was for providing Mobile Medical Units (MMU) in the State of Assam. In the said process, the applicant / writ petitioner was unsuccessful and accordingly the writ petition was instituted challenging the decision to allot the work to the respondent no. 4. The writ petition was however dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2023. Being aggrieved, the applicant had preferred a writ appeal being WA/165/2023 which however was also dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2023 by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The applicant thereafter had preferred SLP(C)/14928/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the notice was issued on 21.07.2023. Subsequently vide order dated 13.10.2023 status-quo was directed to be maintained. It is the case of the applicant / writ petitioner that during the proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.01.2025, the parties were given the liberty to inspect the records which the applicant had done. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.03.2025, the SLP has been dismissed. It is thereafter that the instant review petition has been filed.

3. It may however be mentioned that initially the review petition was preferred before the Hon’ble Division Bench being Review.Pet./43/2025 in which the Hon’ble Division Bench had passed an order dated 09.05.2025 directing the petitioner / applicant to approach the Single Bench, if permitted by law and thereafter the present application has been filed.

4. I have heard Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the review applicant / writ petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, NHM and Shri A. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

5. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant / writ petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 4 had furnished documents in support of its eligibility which was not sufficient to adjudge its eligibility. He has submitted that in the tender document, there is a procedure laid down for evaluation of the bids and under Section V Clause 2, at least 3 years experience in community medicine is necessary. He has also submitted that as per the appendix to the aforesaid Section, the requirement of such Certificate has to be in original. It is the specific case of th