Facts
The review application sought review of the order dated 2 April 2026 allowing the writ petition and setting aside decisions dated 6 October 2025 and 2 December 2025.
Source reference: para. 2The review petitioner relied on a work order dated 12 December 2025 and a consequential agreement executed that day during the pendency of the writ proceedings.
Source reference: para. 3The Court had earlier directed that any further action pursuant to the tender would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
Source reference: para. 4The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the review petitioner’s Special Leave Petition challenging the order under review.
Source reference: para. 5Issues
Whether the work order and agreement issued during the writ proceedings disclosed a ground for reviewing the order dated 2 April 2026.
Source reference: para. 3, 6, 9Whether any other sufficient reason existed to warrant review after the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging that order.
Source reference: para. 5, 7–10Law Applied
The Court applied the settled grounds for review, identifying them as discovery of important new matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was unavailable earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason.
Source reference: para. 7It held that “any other sufficient reason” is limited to grounds analogous to those specified in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Source reference: para. 8The Court also relied on the earlier direction that further action under the tender would remain subject to the writ petition’s outcome.
Source reference: para. 4, 6Reasoning
The work order and agreement were issued while the writ petition was pending and were expressly subject to its outcome; their subsequent existence therefore did not establish an error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient ground for review.
Source reference: para. 6, 9The Court further noted that the order under review had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Source reference: para. 9On these facts, the review petition did not satisfy the limited grounds for review.
Source reference: para. 7–10Holding
The Court held that no ground for review of the order dated 2 April 2026 had been made out and dismissed the civil review application.
Any pending applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: para. 12Original Court PDF
S.B. Engicon Private LimitedvsThe State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
