This review petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment of this Court dated 18.8.2014.
2. The issue in the writ petition pertains to rejection of an online tender submitted by the writ petitioner on account of the failure to remit the EMD amount which was transmitted through the bank. Though the EMD amount has been credited in the review petitioner's account, it was re-transmitted as it was transmitted through mode other than the NEFT mode. The review petitioner's case is that it is on account of error committed by the transmitting bank and not attributable to them. Along with the re-tender submission, any tenderer has to submit hard copies of the tender documents. This Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner had submitted hard copies of the document, directed the review petitioner to process the application after receiving the EMD amount from the writ petitioner. This judgment is sought to be reviewed on the ground that this Court had not adverted to the basic process in submitting tender documents. According to the review petitioner, bid comprises two parts. The first part relating to the minimum eligibility criteria (technical bid) and second part consists of price bid, which consists of the rate quoted by the bidder. It is also submitted that online process also has two stages, stage 1 is the opening of bid I and stage 2 is the opening of price bid. It is submitted that the e-tender system checks first stage and if bidder is not successful in making payment, the system will reflect that bid has been rejected. According to the review petitioner, the verification of the first stage of minimum eligibility criteria (technical bid) is essential and indispensable for verifying whether any tenderer is eligible for the bid. It is further submitted that merely because hard copy is submitted, that will not substitute the requirement. Once a technical bid is rejected, it is impossible for the review petitioner to consider the hard documents. Online process as well as the hard copies are to be verified when opening the bid so as to find out whether any overlapping or any differences in the process of bid through online. It is submitted that both online and hard copies are relevant for the purpose of considering the eligibility of the tenderer. Since the review petitioner has no opportunity to verify minimum eligibility or technical qualification of the petitioner, it is impossible to accept hard copies alone.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no scope for any review. This Court has already considered the fact that hard copies have submitted and the writ petitioner is not at fault in transmitting the EMD and therefore, reconsideration of the issues is not warranted.
4. The scope of the review is limited if the court rendered a judgment on an apparent mistake as to the facts, it may warrant the review of the judgment. At the time of the disposal of the writ petition, the court has only noted that the petitioner has submitted hard copy and that would be sufficient for considering the petitioner's eligibility by the review petitioner. But as rightly pointed out by the review petitioner unless and until they are able to verify the eligibility criteria through online process, the hard copy cannot be relied on for evaluation. I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner when a mechanism is devolved for certain objective, it is not for this court to sit on the wisdom of such authority saying that only one mode is sufficient for the purpose of taking a decision. These aspects having not been adverted to my judgment. I am of the view that the review petitioner has made out a sufficient case to review the judgment.
Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. It is submitted by the writ petitioner that he has already remitted EMD pursuant to the direction of this Court. If the writ petitioner makes a request for return of the EMD, that shall be returned to the writ petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the request. It is also pointed out that initial period fixed for the completion of the work is over. Therefore it is open for the review petitioner to invite fresh tender.
vpv
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE