IN TEE. KOF’BLE, KIGII’ GOIIM' OF CHEATTISGARH £3 BIL Aspwz. Review petition No. lag /2o7o Hwy magma ow OF 0mm? mum 20.07.2010 III Law) 110.303/2009 mime uwcw 226 OF wIISTITHTION OF IIIDIA. PETII’IOIV I’m? 4?EVIEV 027' ORDER PASSED,BY THE HON'BLE 00000 01! 20.07.20 i0 I” ME mm pETzTIozI (c) In. : 303 2009 UIIDFR ARTIgLE 226 OF THE OOIISf’ITUTIOIV OF INHA. PETITIONERS 3 ... 1. M/a; Bhilai Steel Plant Rsspowam. represented by tanagzng 2‘66?“ areatar, Bhilai steel Plant V. Bhilai, Bistt. wry (0.6'). gemxw w 2 Asstt. General Ianager, g§mé r%3 ‘ (cont-raw cell—Operati‘cn) Rhilai, mstt- wr' (co G»). Venus ,MTITIoImR" .- { - 22039000002’. ... l/s.“ sing}: Trans %orters D \I‘u J’br Q Through Partner— singly: ,TokwwWQ S/o. Late Kartar §1ngh Kalra; Aged abvut 38 years, resident of 78, Shanti Hagar, Ameri 120w, Bilaspur (0.6.). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Review Petition No. 109 of 2010 Applicants M/s Bhilai Steel Plant 8a another Versus Non-applicant M/ s Singh Transporters (Application for Review of the order dated 20th July, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 303/2009) DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble S’hri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri B. P. Mishra, Advocate?or the applicants. None for the respondent. ORDER (oral) > (Passed on this 27th day of September, 2010) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. By this petition, the applicants seek review of the order dated 20m July, 2010, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 303 of 2009 ( M/s Singh Transporters Vs. M/s Bhilai Steel Plant 82, Another), whereby the applicants were directed to refund the EMD amount i.e. Rs. l,50,000/- to the petitioner within a period 0f three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondent herein (writ petitioner) while submitting the tender papers did not submit the required necessary documents, therefore, vide letter dated 20.10.2006 the respondent/petitioner was directed to submit Annexure-X, which was the undertaking that they shall deploy 64 nos. of HSL trust CPF labour for the stipulated period of contract, / // / / / I" along with the offer and also to submit Audited Balance Sheet and profit 85 loss account for last three years. 4. Having regardvto the facts situation, we had found that as the respondent/petitioner did not supply the above documents his tende paps were not at all eertainable, accordingly his financial bid was not opened. When the tener papers itself were not entertainabl how the draft of EMD amount of s. l,50,000/—, attache it the tender papers could be ntertainable. Further, we have elaborately discussed all the things that pursuant to Clause 1.16 of Special Conditions, EMD could only be forited if the tendere fails to produce the origal certificates of which attsd copies/elevant documents were produced. The original documents were to be produced efore b ward of the contract. In this case the tender o the writ a f petitioner was not at all entertainable and his financial bid was not opened. More over, Clause 1. 16 of the Special Coniis it was provide that failure to proue the Original Ctificate in support of the attested copies of relevant documents submitted earlier before the award of contract, would result in disqualification nd foreiture of EMD and also liable for a f ebrring from participation in SP tenders, wch shows tat da B hi h the condition of forfeiture of the EMD was only when the original documents were not submitted before award of the contract, But in the present case, as the initial submission of the tender papers remained incomplete and the financial bide of the writ petitioner‘was not opened, the stage of awarding of the contract had not come. As such, this clause 1.16 of Special / :3” u.: ,/ / r er nt d e, R d wh e fe r in ete r in dton d dc er Conditions would not b6 applicable at that stage, Therefore, there was no question to consider awarding of the contract to the respondent/petitioner and therefore the forfeiture of EMD amount was bad. The prayer and the gounds mentioned in the review ptition r e an arged by leared counsel appear o be misconceid. The d u n t ve applicants have not pointed out any anifest error on the face m f record d hey have not brought into the notice, any new o an t fcts h could not be prouced earlier despite diligent effor a whic d ts made by the applicants. I is well settle principles of law that he revi proceedings t d t ew a b nd re not y way of an appeal a have to be strictly confined to the scope an abit f Order 47 ule 1 of the Code of Civil d m o R Procere. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High du Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicants have not produced any ground for review. It appears that the applicans by psentation of this riew t re ev petition seek an opportunity to argue th entire case afresh on e ri un mets der the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well setled princpl of law t ie that under the garb of review petition, the applict should not an be permitted to argue the entir case afresh which would e amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. ( See Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdharyl, Lily Thomas etci Vs. Union of India and othersg, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and 1AIR 1995 sc 455 2 AIR 2000 so 1650