Harshdeep Realties Indore vs Estate Officer Indore Development Authority and Others

Heard on IA No. 4203/2013, an application seeking condonation of delay and also on admission. The delay is of 51 days.

We find that the same has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

By filing this review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3184/2012. This Court, while dismissing the said writ petition, noticing the fact that the petitioner being the sole tenderer in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) impugned in the said writ petition, held that the action of the respondents in cancelling the NIT and to issue fresh NIT, with a view to fetch higher price, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. For arriving to the said conclusion, reliance was placed on an order dated 09.04.2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2182/2013 (Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. Indore Development Authority & others).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to rejection of the petitioner''s NIT, one more NIT was issued, which was also cancelled, but he did not dispute that in the earlier NIT the petitioner had not participated. It is also the case of the petitioner that in various other matters, even the tender of the sole tenderer was accepted, but in this case, the sole tender has not been accepted and fresh NIT has been issued.

Merely because earlier also, NIT was issued, but was cancelled due to sole tender being received, in which the petitioner was not the tenderer or that in few matters, sole tender has been accepted, cannot itself be a ground for the petitioner to insist for acceptance of his sole tender.

In our considered view no case for invoking review jurisdiction, which is extremely limited, is made out. It has also been brought to our notice that the respondent-IDA has issued fresh NIT dated 10.07.2013 in respect of the very same plot No. 11 of Scheme No. 159. This subsequent development shows that the respondent-IDA has invited fresh NIT to fetch more amount. In this view of the matter also, no ground for invoking review jurisdiction is made out. The review petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.