Subsequent work orders subject to the writ’s outcome disclose no ground for review.

The State sought review of the order dated 2 April 2026 allowing Gopal Kumar’s writ petition and setting aside decisions dated 6 October and 2 December 2025.

The State relied on a work order issued on 12 December 2025 to Opposite Party No. 3, followed by an agreement that day.

During the writ proceedings, however, the Court had directed that any further action pursuant to the tender would remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

Opposite Party No. 3’s challenge to the writ judgment was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Whether the work order and consequential agreement issued during the pendency of the writ petition disclosed a ground for reviewing the order allowing the petition.

Whether the review petitioners established an error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient ground for review.

The Court applied the settled grounds for review, referring to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure: discovery of important new matter or evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient reason.

“Any other sufficient reason” is confined to grounds analogous to those specified in the rule.

The Court also applied its earlier direction that further action pursuant to the tender would be subject to the writ petition’s outcome.

The work order and agreement were issued while the writ petition was pending and were therefore subject to its final outcome under the Court’s express direction.

Their subsequent existence did not establish an error in the order under review or an analogous sufficient ground for review.

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Opposite Party No. 3’s special leave petition was also noted; the State’s reliance on the work order and agreement remained insufficient to warrant review.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.