ORDER : 1. We have heard on the review petition, filed and pressed by Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority(JDA). 2. The JDA has sought review of our judgment dated 25.03.2015, on the ground that from the letter dated 16.04.2015 and its enclosures, it is clear that the plea to the effect that incorrect document was sent by the complainant for verification from the NHAI, instead of the document submitted by the appellant in the tender document for appointment of independent Engineer, is factually incorrect and misleading. The judgment has been secured by mis-statement of the facts, and thus, deserves to be reviewed and recalled. 3. It is stated that the original bid document was manipulated, so as to remove the documents actually submitted at page Nos.596 and 624 of the bid document, and were replaced by another document, prior to submission of the record before the Court for perusal, with a view to support the plea to the effect that the complainant's document was sent for verification and not the documents enclosed with the bid. 4. It is submitted that the appellants had claimed that when they came to know about the complaint of submission of forged certificate, dated 06.01.2012, on receipt of the letter dated 11.10.2012, they had withdrawn their bid on 01.10.2012, not because of initiation of any enquiry into the complaint, but for the inordinate delay in finalization of the tender. 5. It is further submitted that once the bid was withdrawn, the argument that the original documents were not sent for verification, could not have been addressed at the time of hearing of the Special Appeal. 6. During the course of arguments, serious allegations are sought to be made against the Senior Counsel, who had appeared in the matter for the JDA, at the time of hearing of the Special Appeal. It is submitted that the Counsel had kept the file including bid documents in his custody for a long time, and that a notice was given to him after the judgment, by the JDA authorities, imputing allegations that he had retained the record, from which eight pages were missing in the tender file. 7. We distinctly remember that upon hearing the parties, we had requested learned Senior Counsel appearing for the JDA, to produce the original record. 7. We distinctly remember that upon hearing the parties, we had requested learned Senior Counsel appearing for the JDA, to produce the original record. He had produced the original record on the next date, and had admitted with fairness that the original documents along with the bid document, in a bound volume, were never taken out and sent for verification to the NHAI. The entire premise of allowing the Special Appeal was based on a perusal of the original record and a statement, made at bar by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the JDA. We had, on such statement, reproduced the contents of both, the original document verifying experience of working with NHAI as well as the document, which was submitted along with the complaint, and was sent to NHAI for verification. 8. This review petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that it has not been filed by the Counsel, who had appeared for the JDA, at the time of hearing of the Special Appeal. Learned counsel, substituted by the JDA, had not appeared, nor had produced the records. 9. In the present case, we not only allowed bid security, to be returned, but also directed for issuance of a letter of apology to the appellant, and imposed a cost of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rs. Ten lacs) on the JDA. 10. The engagement of another Counsel to file the review petition, and making serious allegations against the previous Counsel, without disengaging him, and further in seeking opinion from the same Counsel, who had appeared earlier for filing the appeal against the judgment, does not entitle the JDA to seek review of the judgment. 11. We strongly deprecate the conduct of the Officers of the JDA, to level serious allegations against their Counsel, in an attempt to justify their stand. 12. On merits also, we do not find any error apparent on the record, to review our judgment. 13. The review petition is rejected.