Dismissed¶5

the State of Hp through Secretary Health v. Harsh Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jan 2025RP/140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: review jurisdiction; bar on re-argument/re-hearing; oral order passed in open Court; omission of point at original hearing; tender cancellation on administrative grounds; surgical consumables supply contract; condition No.5 — sampling demonstration before technical committee; financial bid opening conditional on sample approval; sole technically qualified bidder; fresh e-tender; State of H.P. v. Harsh Kumar; Himachal Pradesh High Court. Useful where the question is whether a ground not canvassed before the original Bench can sustain a review, and on protection of the only qualified tenderer.

What did the court decide?

None; the review petition was dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ¶5

the State of Hp through Secretary Health Vs Harsh Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the review petition was dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Coordinate Bench is liable to be reviewed on the ground that, as per condition No.5 of the bid document, a bidder qualifying technical scrutiny was to be called for sampling demonstration before the Committee, with the financial bid to be opened only on approval of the sample. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The order under review was passed in open Court orally (indicated by the word 'oral') in the presence of counsel for the parties, and the sampling-demonstration point under condition No.5 was not put forth at that time; accordingly it cannot furnish a ground for review now.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

No case for review is made out because the case cannot be allowed to be re-argued: the earlier Bench had found the writ petitioner to be the only person who qualified the technical bid, and since the respondents were not willing to award him the contract, the Court had stepped in to protect his interest.

¶5

Key takeaways

The review petition lacks merit and is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No.140 of 2024, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (decided 06.01.2025) — seeks review of order dated 12.09.2024 of the Coordinate Bench (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, then C.J., and Satyen Vaidya, J.) which had set aside the proceedings dated 18.01.2024 cancelling the tender dated 19.08.2023 (administrative reasons) and the consequential e-tender dated 31.01.2024, and had directed award of the contract for supply of surgical consumables to the writ petitioner — the only person who qualified the technical bid — along with the other successful tenderers, with liberty to issue a fresh e-tender. Ground of review: condition No.5 of the bid document required a bidder clearing technical scrutiny to undergo sampling demonstration before the tender technical committee, with financial bids to be opened only on approval of the sample. Held: the order under review was passed orally in open Court in the presence of counsel and the said point was never raised at that time; the writ petitioner being the sole technical qualifier and the respondents unwilling to award him the contract, the Court had stepped in to protect his interest; no case for review is made out, as a case cannot be re-argued. Review petition dismissed with pending application(s). (G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.; Satyen Vaidya, J.)

¶1

2025:HHC:1128

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.140 of 2024 Decided on: 06.01.2025 State of H.P. & others ...Petitioners Versus Harsh Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Nemo. G.S. Sandhawalia Chief Justice (Oral)

¶3

Order dated 12.09.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench which comprised Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the then Chief Justice and Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge is sought to be reviewed.

¶4

The ground of review is that as per condition No.5 of the bid document the bidder who qualifies technical documents scrutiny is to be called for sampling demonstration before the Committee. The financial bid was to be opened only if the sample is approved by the tender technical committee.

¶5

¶6

Vide order dated 12.09.2024, which is sought to

¶7

be reviewed, directions were issued to award the contract for supply of the surgical consumables to the petitioner along with other persons who were found qualified by the technical committee as mentioned above. Liberty was also given to the respondents to issue a fresh e-tender for more surgical consumables without affecting the right created in favour of the petitioner and other two successful tenderers.

¶8

We are of the considered opinion that the order

¶9

under review was passed in open Court as is clear from the word ‘oral’ which is written against the name of the then Chief Justice and in presence of counsel for parties, and no such issue was then put forth. The Bench had found that the impugned proceedings dated 18.01.2024 cancelling the tender dated 19.08.2023 due to administrative reason, apparently was not justified as well as the consequential e- tender issued on 31.01.2024 which were accordingly set aside.

¶10

In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that no case for review is made out as the case cannot be allowed to be re-argued as such, as it was found by the

¶11

¶12

Bench that the writ petitioner is the only person who qualified

¶13

the technical bid. Apparently on account of the fact that the

¶14

respondents were not wanting to award the contract to him, the Court had to step in and protect his interest. In such circumstance, we do not find any merit in the review petition

¶15

and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.

¶16

( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice

¶17

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge

¶18

January 06, 2025 (vt)

the State of Hp through Secretary Health v. Harsh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

the State of Hp through Secretary Health v. Harsh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Ram Dass

State of Hp and Others Vs Kalia Ram and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others

Vipin Bhatia Vs the State of Hp and Others

Archana Koul Sharma Vs Dhani Loan and Services (Formerly Indiabulls Consumer Ltd.)

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Jan Dei