JUDGMENT

(per Hon'ble Sri Alok Kumar Verma, J.)

This review application has been filed to review the judgment, dated 22.09.2021, passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 300 of 2020, M/s. Panchghati Construction vs. M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari and others.

2. The brief facts of this case, which are necessary to notice for deciding the present review application, are that, by tender notice dated 04.12.2019, the Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency, the respondent no.2, had invited bids for construction of motor road (Package No.UT-402) (Upgradation) from Banku to Salla-Pasam, for a length of 13.00 Kms. Pursuant to the tender notice, four bidders had applied for the same. On 28.01.2020, the technical bids of all the four bidders were evaluated by the Technical Committee. While the Technical Committee approved the technical bids of three bidders, namely M/s Panchaghati Construction (the appellant before this Court), M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari (the petitioner before the Writ Court), M/s L.D. Binwal, the Technical Committee rejected the technical bid of A.R. Thermosets Pvt. Ltd.

3. M/s Panchaghati Construction, the respondent No.5, and the appellant before this Court, filed a complaint on 03.02.2020 against the petitioner M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari, ostensibly, on the ground that the legal status of the partnership firm of the petitioner was unclear. Immediately, on 04.02.2020, the petitioner, M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari submitted its objections to the complaint. In its objection, the petitioner admitted that there has been a change in the 3 composition, as the members of the partnership firm had increased. However, the change in the number of partners does not change “the legal status" of the partnership firm.

4. Disagreeing with the reply submitted by the petitioner, by order dated 03.03.2020, the Technical Evaluation Committee, declared the petitioner's bid as non-responsive on the ground of “doubtful legal status". On 07.03.2020, the financial bid was opened. It was discovered that the respondent No.5, M/s Panchghati Construction is the lowest bidder.

5. Meanwhile, since the petitioner was aggrieved by order dated 03.03.2020, it filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Although, the petitioner had also filed a stay application, this Court declined to grant any stay in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, by order dated 05.09.2020, the Procurement Evaluation Committee recommended that the bid of the respondent No.5, M/s Panchghati Construction, should be accepted. However, it was an admitted fact that despite the said recommendation, no work order was issued to the respondent No.5.

6. After hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 18.11.2020, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and set-aside the order dated 03.03.2020.

7. Since the review applicant – appellant was aggrieved by order dated 18.11.2020, it had filed the Special Appeal No. 300 of 2020 before this Court. At the time of the hearing of the said appeal, this Court observed that even as of today, i.e. time of the hearing, no work order was issued to the appellant. After hearing the parties at length, the order dated 22.09.2021, under review, was passed by this Court, by which the Special Appeal was dismissed.

8. Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the review applicant, and perused the judgment under review.

9. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, the learned counsel for the review applicant (appellant in the Special Appeal No.300 of 2020), submits that the partner of the firm, respondent No. 1, namely M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari, is highly influential person, who used to obtain work by playing fraud. A work contract of almost Rs. 123 crores was obtained by the respondent No. 1 by annexing forged documents. After inquiry, a detailed report was submitted by the Chief Engineer, Kumaun, on 15.06.2017. On the basis of the Inquiry Report dated 15.06.2017, a First Information Report was registered against the partner of the respondent No. 1 und