Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, G. Satapathy, JJ.
Debadutta Pal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Opposite Parties
RVWPET No.11 of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.Avijit Pal, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to correcting apparent errors; mere dissatisfaction with previous decisions does not justify re-examination of evidence or arguments.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 - Review petition - Review was sought against the dismissal of the original writ petition concerning the forfeiture of the EMD - Court held that the forfeiture was lawful as the tender was accepted and communicated prior to cancellation - Review jurisdiction not to be used for reappreciation of facts, and mere disagreement with the court's reasoning not a valid ground. (Paras 16, 18, 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner had applied for review of an earlier decision where his EMD was forfeited following the cancellation of the tender process due to defects in the BOQ. The petitioner claimed the action was arbitrary and sought a refund.
Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed the prior ruling stating the forfeiture complied with the terms set forth and that no demonstrable error warranted a review.
Issues: The key issues involved whether the forfeiture was lawful and if there was a manifest error in the prior decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that review does not permit reappraisal of evidence; rather, it permits correction only for apparent errors.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. This RVWPET has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the C.P.C.” for brevity) by the Petitioner praying for reviewing the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.16207 of 2012, whereby the said Writ Petition was dismissed.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The facts, as narrated in the aforesaid Writ Petition as well as in the present Review Petition, are that the Opposite Party No.1 invited item rate tenders for bridge works under the Biju Setu Yojana through ‘E’- procurement vide NIT No. NCB-Online-11-2011-12 (Bridges), Letter No. 20634.
3. The Petitioner, being an ‘A’ Class Contractor under the Government of Odisha, submitted its bid online for Item No. 28 in the Annexure, concerning the work of construction of a bridge over Junia Nala on the Kalipoi–Balipahad Road in the district of Cuttack. The approximate estimated cost of the work was stated to be Rs.1,66,86,000, with the stipulated time of completion being 12 calendar months.
4. The Petitioner deposited the EMD amounting to Rs.1,67,000, which was kept in fixed deposit by the Opposite Party No.3.
5. The Opposite Parties shortlisted the Petitioner as the lowest bidder for the aforesaid work. The Opposite Party No.3 informed the Petitioner vide Letter No. 423 that his tender, being 5.91% less than the corresponding estimated cost, had been accepted by the higher authorities. The Petitioner was further requested to furnish an LSD of Rs.1,45,030in the form of a fixed deposit from any scheduled bank, duly pledged in favour of the Opposite Party No.3.
6. However, as the Opposite Party No.3 did not respond to the Petitioner’s subsequent requests, the Petitioner, through his lawyer, sought information regarding the land acquisition status of the proposed worksite under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by filing an application under Section 6 (1) of the said Act in the prescribed format.
7. The Petitioner also submitted a representation to the Opposite Party No.3 seeking a refund of the illegally forfeited EMD amount of Rs.1,67,000. In that representation, the Petitioner highlighted the non- availability of the proposed site and contended that the forfeiture of the EMD was illegal and arbitrary. Nevertheless, vide Letter No. 1298 dated 02.07.2012, the Opposite Party No.3 intimated the Petitioner regarding the forfeiture of the EMD, without assigning any cogent reasons.
8. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1, by its Letter No. 12916/RR-BR-T-CTC=4/2C12 dated 24.07.2012, addressed to the Opposite Party No.2, cancelled the tender in respect of the aforesaid work on the ground that the BOQ wording in Item Nos. 4, 6, 23, and 25 was defective, thereby preventing a decision from being taken in the said tender. The Opposite Party No.1 further advised the Opposite Party No.2 to invite a fresh tender after recasting the estimate based on the current Schedule of Rates, 2012, and in strict adherence to all formalities. The Opposite Party No.2 was also warned to be more cautious in future to avoid such lapses. It was further mentioned that all the tender documents that were under consideration for the award of work had been returned to the Opposite Party No.2.
9. Thereafter, the Petitioner again applied, through his Advocate, for a copy of Letter No. 12916 dated 24.07.2012 under the RTI Act on 30.07.2012. In response, the Public Information Officer, Rural Works Division, Cuttack-II, furnished a compliance report on 04.08.2012, but did not supply a copy of the said letter.
10. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 invited a fresh tender for the same work vide NIT No. MCB No. Tender Online RWC-29, Letter No. 1549, along with a modified BOQ.
11. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing by this Hon’ble Court on 10.01.2022. It was the specific case of the Petitioner that the original Notice Inviting Tender was defective and was, in fact, cancelled by the authorities on that v
