Dismissed

M/S S.H. Enterprise v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Nov 2025Review.Pet./209/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a review petition challenging an order in a writ appeal concerning a terminated catering contract. While a clerical error was corrected, the court held that the cited precedent regarding writ jurisdiction was distinguishable and that a contractor's grievance regarding a tender should be addressed in civil court, rendering the review non-maintainable.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S S.H. Enterprise Vs Indian Oil Corporation… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010177502025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Review.Pet./209/2025

¶6

M/S S.H. ENTERPRISE

¶7

A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OF MD. SAFIQULHUSSAIN, S/O LATE HUSSAIN ALI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAZIDUR RAHMAN, S/O LATE OHIDUR RAHMAN, R/O RAJ APARTMENT, BLOCK-B, 2ND FLOOR, GMCH ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP, ASSAM 781005

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BONGAIGAON REFINERY, P.O. DHALIGAON, DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM 783385

¶10

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER I/C (HR) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BONGAIGAON REFINERY P.O. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG ASSAM 783385

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACTS) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BONGAIGAON REFINERY P.O. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG ASSAM 783385

¶12

4:THE SENIOR MANAGER (EMPLOYEES SERVICE) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BONGAIGAON REFINERY P.O. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG ASSAM 783385

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

5:THE CHIEF MANAGER (EMS) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BONGAIGAON REFINERY P.O. DHALIGAON DIST. CHIRANG ASSAM 78338

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SHARMA, MS P PHUKAN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, SC, I O C,FOR CAVEATOR,N GAUTAM,MISS. R R KAKATI

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

07.11.2025

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation from any of the respondents although the names of the learned counsel for the respondents appear in the cause-list.

¶23

In this order, the word “petitioner” would mean the review petitioner and the word “respondents” would mean and include the present respondents. This has been clarified to remove any confusion as several other proceedings have been referred to in this order.

¶24

This review petition has been preferred in respect of order dated 17.07.2025, passed by this Court in W.A. 152/2025.

¶25

In brief, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-

¶26

a. The petitioner was awarded with a contract dated 24.03.2023, for providing catering and other services in Bongaigaon Refinery Guwahati

¶27

Page No.# 3/6

¶28

Guest House and Office Complex of the respondent no.1 for a period from 01.05.2023 to 30.04.2025. Thereafter, Letter of Award (LoA for short) dated 29.03.2023, was issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

b. Owing to some disputes, the respondent no. 1 had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3804/2023, and notice was issued. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the contract was terminated on 06.11.2023.

¶30

c. The said termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (C) 6596/2023. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a common judgment and order dated 06.09.2024.

¶31

d. The parties to the writ petition did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and order dated 06.09.2024.

¶32

e. Pursuant to the said common judgment and order dated 06.09.2024, the respondent no.1, by a communication dated 22.10.2024, directed the petitioner, amongst others, to complete the contractual obligation for the remaining period of the contract by completing the required formality.

¶33

f. However, in the meantime, the canteen workers of the erstwhile contractor had preferred a writ appeal, being W.A. No. 375/2024 – Dilip Kumar Sarmah & 21 Ors. v. M/s. S.H. Enterprise & 5 Ors.

¶34

g. The respondent authorities had issued a fresh tender/ NIT dated 01.02.2025 and accordingly, the petitioner had again approached this Court and by filing W.P.(C) 738/2025, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the fresh tender.

¶35

h. The learned Single Judge, while issuing notice vide order dated

¶36

Page No.# 4/6

¶37

12.02.2025, as an interim measure, directed that the tender dated 01.02.2025 should not be finalized without the leave of the Court.

¶38

i. The respondents filed I.A.(C) 775/2025 in connection with W.P.(C) 738/2025, seeking modification/ alternation of the order dated 12.02.2025. In view of the common order dated 06.09.2024, passed in W.P.(C) 3804/2023 and W.P.(C) 6596/2023, permitting the petitioner to compete the contractual obligations for the balance period, and moreover that the W.P.(C) No. 6142/2024, would be rendered infructuous, expressed its disinclination to pass any interim order.

¶39

j. Accordingly, the respondents had filed W.A. 152/2025, to assail the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.(C) 775/2025, arising out of W.P.(C) 738/2025.

¶40

This Court, by an order dated 17.07.2024, passed in W.A. 152/2025, considered the fact that the petitioner had not taken over the contract area i.e. Bongaigaon Refinery Guwahati Guest House and Office Complex and moreover, the catering and other services were not provided to the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner had not participated in the fresh tender process.

¶41

Aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, this review petition has been preferred.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this review has been filed on two counts. Firstly, that a typographical error has crept in paragraph 23 of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, which would require substitution of the word “appellants” with the word “respondents”. Secondly, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of ABL

¶43

Page No.# 5/6

¶44

International Ltd. & Anr. V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 553, has held that the existence of alternative remedy does not bar the invocation of writ jurisdiction where issues of public law and constitutional obligations are involved. No other submissions have been made.

¶45

Considered the submissions and the materials available on the record.

¶46

The word “appellants”, appearing in the last line of paragraph 23 of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, is indeed a typing/clerical error as the tender was assailed by the respondents in W.A. 152/2025. Therefore, the said typing error is corrected that thus, it is ordered that the word “appellants” appearing in last line of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025 stands deleted and substituted with the word “respondents”.

¶47

Against the observations made in paragraph 23 of the said order, that the respondents in W.A. 152/2025 [i.e. the petitioner in this writ petition] can main a suit for recovering damages, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. (supra). In the said case, the repudiation of contract of insurance was assailed by way of a writ petition. In the said context, as disputed questions were involved, the point arose whether the parties can be relegated to a civil court. Such a question has not arisen in the present case in hand and therefore, on facts, the present case is distinguishable. We take note that in several recent cases, the Supreme Court of India has also held that a tenderer or a contractor with a grievance can approach the civil court and sue for damages. If one needs any authority on the point, the case of Uflex Ltd. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 0 Supreme(SC) 571 [also reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165]. Paragraph 3 of the said order is quoted

¶48

Page No.# 6/6

¶49

below:-

¶50

3. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court and thus, “attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted.”

¶51

This Court, while passing the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, has placed reliance on the case of (i) Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, (ii) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Limited, (2022) 6 SCC 401 and therefore, this is not a case of misconception of law by the Court. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any part of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, on the ground that the decision of this Court is vitiated by passing an order contrary to the ratio laid down in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. (supra), in that event, the Court is of the considered opinion that said order would be an erroneous order, which cannot be reconsidered in exercise of review jurisdiction.

¶52

Therefore, this petition for review is not maintainable and the same is dismissed without issuance of notice on the respondents.

¶53

JUDGE JUDGE

¶54

Parimita.

¶55

Comparing Assistant

M/S S.H. Enterprise v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S S.H. Enterprise v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohiran Nessa Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Anjala Basumatary Vs State of Assam

Abhiram Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

MD Amar Ali Alias Aman Ali Vs the Union of India

Tejiran Nessa Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Lalbhanu @ Lal Bhanu Begum Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.