M/S Tanor Engineering And Anr. vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors.

Facts

The review petitioners, M/s Tanor Engineering and its proprietor Diling Tatak, sought a review of a previous High Court judgment dated 16.05.2025. The original writ petition concerned the disqualification of the petitioners' technical bid for a project. The petitioners raised three grounds for review: an alleged mistake in paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment regarding the number of reasons for disqualification, a claim that the State respondents never sought clarification on a Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024, and the production of a post-judgment price breakup dated 16.05.2025 indicating the Tax Invoice related to two air compressors, not one as previously held. The respondents argued that the review was not maintainable and that the petitioners' submissions did not warrant a review.

Held

The Court held that there was indeed a typographical error in paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment, and the word 'two' should be read as 'one' in that context. Regarding the second ground, the Court noted that even if no clarification was explicitly sought by the State, the petitioners had provided a clarification on 05.04.2025. Concerning the third ground, the Court found that the price breakup dated 16.05.2025 was obtained after the impugned judgment was passed and appeared to be an afterthought. The Court reasoned that this price breakup, not having been produced during the original writ proceedings or before the respondents earlier, could not be accepted as proof of two air compressors. The Court emphasized that a review is not an appeal and cannot be used to introduce new evidence that could have been produced earlier, especially when it involves factual issues. The Court found no material error apparent on the face of the record that undermined the soundness of the judgment or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no case for review was made out. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether there was a mistake in paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2025, specifically concerning the number of reasons for disqualifying the petitioners' technical bid, requiring the word 'two' to be read as 'one' (turning on the interpretation of the Court's own prior findings). 2. Whether the State respondents had sought clarification from the petitioners regarding the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 (turning on the factual record of communication between the parties). 3. Whether a price breakup dated 16.05.2025, obtained after the impugned judgment, could be considered as new evidence to establish that the Tax Invoice dated 20.10.2024 pertained to two air compressors, justifying a review of the prior decision (turning on the principles of review, specifically the discovery of new evidence and errors apparent on the face of the record). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that paragraph 32 contained a typographical error, that no clarification was sought by the State, and that the new price breakup proved the Tax Invoice related to two air compressors, warranting a review. They relied on the principle of correcting apparent mistakes. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State respondents argued that the petitioners' disagreement with the Court's view did not constitute grounds for review, that the petitioners had themselves provided a clarification on 05.04.2025 without a breakup, and that the post-judgment price breakup was an afterthought and not a valid ground for review. They cited principles of review, emphasizing that it is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reopen concluded adjudications based on new evidence not produced earlier.