EAGLE HUNTER SOLUTIONS LTD vs GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR

2024-07-09 Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09th JULY, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(C) 1194/2020
EAGLE HUNTER SOLUTIONS LTD
….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj and Mr. Satpal Singh, Advocates.

versus

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
REVIEW PET. 115/2024 & CM APPLs. 18140/2024, 20565/2024
1. The instant review petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking review of the Judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1194/2020.
2. The Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition being W.P.(C) 1194/2020 with the following prayers:
a) Pass an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondent-university (respondents No.1 and 2) to release the FDR bearing No.258157, dated 24.09.2018 amounting to Rs. 17,34,000/- being deposited towards security tender 2018, and also release the bank guarantee bearing No.l62191GPER0042 dated 17.08.2019 amounting to Rs. 18,78,000/-, to the petitioner;

b) Pass an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the respondent-university in pursuance of show cause notice dated 23.01.2020 thereby forfeiting the FDR bearing No.258157, dated 24.09.2018 amounting to Rs. 17,34,000/- being deposited towards security tender 2018, and also release the bank guarantee bearing No.l62191GPER0042 dated 17.08.2019 amounting to Rs. 18,78,000/- and declaring the action of the respondent-university as illegal, arbitrary, null and void;

c) Pass any other of further order/direction, which this Hon’ble Court may just deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner was a participant in a tender bearing Tender No. 2018_GGSIP_156687_1 for the year 2018-19 and tender bearing Tender No- GGSIPU / SECURITY/2019-20/01-(02) for the year 2019-20 issued by Respondent No.1/University for providing round the clock security for the University Campus at Dwarka. The Petitioner was unsuccessful in the tender. The Respondents vide Order dated 29.01.2020 forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) given by the Petitioner in the shape of FDR bearing No. 258157 dated 24.09.2018 amounting Rs.17,34,000/- and Bank Guarantee bearing No.16219GPER0042 dated 17.08.2019 amounting Rs.18,78,000/- for the two tenders respectively. The amount was forfeited on the ground that the Petitioner has furnished false affidavits which had been filed in terms of Annexure – G of the tenders. The facts of the case reveal that on 06.07.2017, a criminal case was initiated against the Petitioner in CC No.69/2015 in the Court of ACM (SW), Dwarka and the Petitioner was convicted by the said Court.
4. Clause 2.0 of the tender document for the year 2018-19 lays down the eligibility criteria for providing security services for University Campus at Dwarka. Clause 2.1(g), which is relevant, reads as under:
2.1(g) The bidder/organization has not been punished by way of imprisonment and / or fine in the last 5 years, upto last date of receipt of tender. Undertaking to this effect shall be attached as, per Annexure – G.

5. As per Annexure G, the bidder had to file an affidavit stating that the bidder has not been penalized in the past five years by the Labour Court, EPFO & ESI by way of imprisonment and as per Annexure G, the bidder was also to state that if the information found to be false then the tender/ contract will be rejected / cancelled by the University, and the (EMI) (Earnest Money Deposit)/ SD (Security Deposit) shall be forfeited.
6. In terms of Annexure G, the Petitioner filed an affidavit for the tender of 2018-19 which reads as under:

Annexure G

DECLARATION REGARDING NON PENALIZE/ PUNISH FOR TAKING PART IN TENDER.

I/We Lt. Col. B. P. Puri (Retd.) hereby declare that the firm /agency namely M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Eagle House, 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarva Priay Vihar, New Delhi has not been penalized in the past five years by the Labour Court, EPFO & ESI by way imprisonment.

In case the above information found false, I / we are fully aware that the tender/ contract will be rejected / cancelled by the University, and EMI) (Earnest Money Deposit)/ SD (Security Deposit) shall be forfeited.

In addition to the above, the University will not be responsible to pay the bills for any completed/partially completed work.

DEPONENT

Attested:
(Public-Notary / Executive Magistrate) with Date

Name: Lt. Col. B. P. Puri (Retd.)

Address: M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Eagle House, 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarva Priya Vihar, New Delhi-110016

7. Similarly, Clause 2.0 of the tender document for the year 2019-20 lays down the eligibility criteria for providing security services for University Campus at Dwarka. Clause 2.1(f), which is relevant, reads as under:
2.1(f). The bidder should not have any criminal case pending against its proprietor/ partners as on last date of receipt of tender or having been earlier convicted on grounds of offences involving economic offences or moral turpitude or for violation of laws in force. Undertaking to this effect shall he attached as per Annexure -G.

8. As per Annexure G, the bidder had to file an affidavit stating that no criminal case pending is against its proprietor/ partners as on last date of receipt of tender or having been earlier convicted on grounds of offences involving economic offences or moral turpitude or for violation of laws in force and as per Annexure G, the bidder was also to state that if the information found to be false then the tender/ contract will be rejected / cancelled by the University, and the (EMI) (Earnest Money Deposit)/ SD (Security Deposit) shall be forfeited.
9. In terms of Annexure G, the Petitioner filed an affidavit for the tender of 2019-20 which reads as under:

Annexure G

DECLARATION REGARDING NON PENDING CRIMINAL CASE FOR TAKING PART IN TENDER.

I/We Lt. Col. B. P. Puri (Retd.) hereby declare that the firm /agency namely M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Eagle House, 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarva Priay Vihar, New Delhi has no criminal case pending against partners/propritors/others as on the last date of receipt of the tender.

AND

I/We Lt. Col. B. P. Puri (Retd.) hereby declare that the firm /agency namely M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Eagle House, 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarva Priay Vihar, New Delhi has not been convicted on grounds of offences involving economic offences or moral turpitude or for violations of law in force.

In addition to the above, the University will not be responsible to pay the bills for any completed /partially completed work.

DEPONENT

Attested:
(Public-Notary / Executive Magistrate) with Date

Name: Lt. Col. B. P. Puri (Retd.)

Address: M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Eagle House, 61C, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi-16.

10. Noticing that the information furnished by the Petitioner for the year 2018-19 was correct and there was no concealment but the information furnished by the Petitioner for the year 2019-20 was incorrect, this Court had allowed the writ petition in part and directed the Respondents to refund the EMD of the Petitioner for the sum of Rs. 17,34,000/- in favour of the Petitioner for the year 2018-19. However, this Court held that the forfeiture of the Bank Guarantee No.16219GPER0042 dated 17.08.2019 amounting Rs.18,78,000/- for the year 2019-20 was correct.
11. The Petitioner in the present review petition has only chosen to re-argue the entire case and has not made out any case showing any error apparent on the face of record and as to how the Petitioner has not violated Clause 2.1(f) of the tender for the year 2019-20 and how the affidavit furnished by the Petitioner is correct.
12. It is well settled that the review petition cannot be filed for re-arguing the entire case on merits. All the grounds raised in the review petition are completely for re-arguing the case which can only be done in an appeal. Material on record indicates that instead of filing an LPA, the Petitioner filed an SLP being No.28460/2023 before the Honble Apex Court against the Judgment dated 16.08.2023 which has sought to be reviewed in the present review petition. The said SLP was withdrawn by the Petitioner on 19.01.2024 and after withdrawing the SLP, the instant review petition has been filed by the Petitioner before this Court. In the review petition, no error apparent on the face of record has been demonstrated by the Petitioner. Other than re-arguing the entire case on merits once again which cannot be a ground for a review of Judgment dated 16.08.2023. The Apex Court in Parison Devi & Ors. v. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, has observed as under:
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

13. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review petition as there is no error apparent on the face of record and the same has been filed only for re-arguing the entire case once again on merits.
14. The review petition is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 09, 2024
S. Zakir

W.P.(C) 1194/2020 Page 8 of 8