AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for condoning the delay occurred in filing the review application. The order dated 01st November, 2011 passed by this Court is as follows: The petitioners are bidders in connection with a contract between them and National Highway Authority of India Ltd. One of the conditions in connection with the acceptance of bid is that "Any bid having bid security for lesser value and shorter validity period shall be treated as non-responsive." According to the petitioners, the earlier bank guarantee was for a shorter period which was subsequently extended and accepted by the authority concerned. Therefore, their financial bid is to be opened. According to the respondents, incorrect period as fixed by the bank guarantee is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... National Highway Authority of India and others), wherein a limited interim order was passed to the extent that it will be open to the respondents to proceed with the tender process, but not to declare the result till further orders are passed. Such interim order was passed on 25th February, 2011. As per the own statement of the applicants as made in paragraph-10 of the affidavit, such interim order was not extended by further order of this Court dated 09th March, 2011. For proper understanding, paragraphs-9 and 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the review application are quoted hereunder: 9. That the M/S. Vikas Enterprises being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of the tender process by NHAI on 25.2.2011 has filed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clared the result of the bid. It is also alleged that the bid of the applicants/petitioners herein was substantially responsive to the bidding documents and it has offered the lowest evaluated bid price. By means of this review application the applicants/ petitioners have taken a ground that when the Court in the erstwhile writ petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11719 of 2011, has passed an order to the effect that it will be open to the authority to complete the tender process and declare the result, the result will, however, be subject to final decision of the writ petition. According to their own statement in paragraph-13 of the affidavit filed in support of the review application, such bid is subject to final decision of the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re would be no end of the litigation. Moreover, engagement of new counsel to make his argument raising a new ground in a different view, cannot be a valid ground for the purpose of review. Following such practice, the Stamp Reporter of this Court has submitted a report at the time of filing the review application. However, no explanation is available with regard to the same. The only explanation as given with regard to the condonation of delay is that as because the Supreme Court decided the matter on 29th November, 2011 directing to file the review application, therefore, there was delay on the part of the applicants/petitioners in filing the same. However, no new question of fact or law is available before us. 6. According to us, this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the work is subject-matter of the present writ petition, they can take advantage of any order of the other writ petition Moreover, when, according to the applicants /petitioners, the same is a subject-matter of different writ petition, it will not affect the right of the authority in calling for tender and select one of the tenderers. Lastly, a tenderer's right cannot be construed as legally enforceable right to compel the respondents to accept the bid. It is a question of legitimate expectation and such legitimate expectation is dependable upon facts and circumstances of each case unless the same is outcome of unfair-means or arbitrary and/ or illegal action. We do not find any of such grounds for applying our mind. Therefore, there ....