Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/S SAPL-GCC JV, was a participant in a public tender called by the New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) for construction of breakwater. The fifth respondent, M/S Yojaka India Private Limited, had filed W.P.No.6892/2021 challenging the tender process, which was disposed of by a coordinate bench on 19.04.2021. The petitioner, not being a party to that writ, filed the present petition seeking review of that judgment, alleging that the judgment prejudiced its interests. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 365, to argue that a person aggrieved by a judgment though not a party can seek review. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioner was not a necessary party to the earlier writ and that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated. The court held that the review petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Review Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - A person who was not a party to the original writ petition cannot seek review of the judgment unless he demonstrates that he was a necessary party whose interests were directly affected and that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the petitioner, though a participant in the tender process, was not a necessary party to the earlier writ and no error was shown. (Paras 1-3)
B) Tender Law - Public Tender - Locus Standi - A participant in a public tender who was not impleaded in a previous writ petition challenging the tender process cannot seek review of the judgment disposing of that petition merely because the judgment may affect his commercial interests. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish that it was a necessary party or that the judgment suffered from any error. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who was not a party to the original writ petition can seek review of the judgment on the ground that it prejudicially affects his interests, and whether the review petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
- Error apparent on the face of the record
- Necessary party
- Locus standi
- Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (02) 23
Writ Petition No.11165 of 2021 (GM-TEN)
Sri. S S Naganand, Senior Counsel; Sri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Senior Counsel; Sri. H L Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner; Sri. R Yateesh Kumar, CGC for R1; Sri. R Subramanya, Advocate for R2 to R4; Sri. Anand R Kalli for Sri. M S Venugopal, Advocate for R5
Government of India, New Mangalore Port Trust, Chief Engineer (Civil), Tender Committee, M/S Yojaka India Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition seeking recall of a judgment in a writ petition concerning a public tender.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought review and recall of the order dated 19.04.2021 in W.P.No.6892/2021 and dismissal of that writ petition.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the judgment in the earlier writ petition, to which it was not a party, prejudiced its interests in the tender process.
Previous Decisions
A coordinate bench of this court disposed of W.P.No.6892/2021 on 19.04.2021 in favor of the fifth respondent.
Issues
Whether a person not a party to the original writ petition can seek review of the judgment on the ground that it prejudicially affects his interests?
Whether the review petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that it was a participant in the tender and the judgment in the earlier writ prejudiced its interests, relying on Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab.
Respondents contended that the petitioner was not a necessary party and no error apparent on record was shown.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who was not a party to the original writ petition cannot seek review of the judgment unless he demonstrates that he was a necessary party whose interests were directly affected and that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The review jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited and cannot be invoked merely because the judgment may affect commercial interests.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner-Company who was in the fray of public tender in question is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking review of the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in fifth respondent’s W.P.No.6892/2021 disposed off on 19.4.2021 inter alia on the grounds that it was not arrayed as a party to the case and the said judgment has prejudiced its interest; in support of the claim for review, the decision of the Apex Court in SHIVDEO SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1963 SC 365, is pressed into service.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed W.P.No.11165/2021 seeking review of the judgment dated 19.04.2021 in W.P.No.6892/2021 passed by a coordinate bench. The petition was heard and reserved for order, and this order was pronounced on 23.02.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XLVII Rule 1
