Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th July, 2024
SUNIL YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Joydeep Sarma, Mr. Kaushal Kapoor Pandey, Advocates. (M:
9910372401)
Through: Ms. Shweta Bharti, Ms. Ankita Panikkar and Mr. Jatin Chaddha, Advs. (M: 9611050217)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present review petition has been filed by Government E Marketplace (hereinafter, ‘GEM’) seeking review of the directions given in the judgment dated 1st November, 2023 wherein directions were given to make necessary corrections in the GEM portal, clarifying that the Petitioner was the H[1] bidder. The relevant extract of the judgement is set out below:
5. In light of the undisputed fact that the Petitioner is an H[1] bidder, and that the work contract must be awarded to the H[1] bidder as per the tender conditions, 15:37 the Respondents are directed to award the work to the Petitioner in terms of the NIT.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 was fair enough to state before this court that they will be awarding the work in question to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
7. The Respondent No. 2, GEM, is directed to make necessary corrections on the GEM Portal clarifying that the Petitioner is an H[1] bidder in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT issued by the Respondent No 1.”
3. The stand of GEM in the application is that the mistake was in the creation of the Bid itself by Respondent No.1 and there was no technical glitch on the GEM portal. It further urged that the selection of L[1] instead of H[1] was an error by GEM, which it was not. The prayer in the review petition is for recall of the directions to GEM.
4. A perusal of the judgment dated 1st November, 2023 would show that the Division Bench has made a clear finding that the Petitioner being the HI bidder, the contract ought to be awarded to it. The directions contained in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the judgment dated 1st November, 2023 are set out below:
5. A perusal of paragraph 7 of the judgment extracted above shows that the directions to make corrections on the GEM portal is merely a consequential direction and nothing more. Therefore, no review would be entertainable at the instance of GEM. The GEM is merely a facilitator, who is to give effect to the orders passed by this Court.
6. Moreover, in the present case, a contempt petition being CONT. CAS.(C).100/2024 was also moved by the Petitioner wherein the following 15:37 order dated 4th April, 2024 has been passed:
7. As per the above order, a manual correction has been agreed to by the Respondent No.1, who is the contesting Respondent.
8. Pursuant to the said order dated 4th April, 2024, on 1st July, 2024, the 15:37 Medical Superintendent of Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital has also awarded providing of kiosk services at the hospital to Mr. Sunil Yadav.
9. In view thereof, GEM has also recorded its no objection in the order dated 4th April, 2024. Therefore, the grievance in the review petition does not survive.
10. Needless to add, if any correction is to be made on the GEM Portal, the same shall also be facilitated by GEM without any grievance being raised.
11. It is made clear that GEM has no role in the award or non-award of work, as it is merely a portal to facilitate allocation of work to the Petitioner. Thus, the judgment dated 1st November, 2023 now stands satisfied. Mr. Joydeep Sharma, ld. Counsel also confirms the same.
12. Therefore, no further orders are called for. The review petition is disposed of in the above terms along with any pending applications, if any.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. JULY 12, 2024/dk/rks 15:37