Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Rajib Hazarika and Anr.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010070342025

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WA/125/2025

¶6

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5A-5B, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANTKUNJ, NEW DELHI 110070

¶7

2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (MM) CENTRAL LOGISTIC AND PRODUCTION SERVICES PROCUREMENT GROUP CENTRAL PROCUREMENT DEPTT. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR NBP GREEN HEIGHTS BKC BANDRA (E) MMUMBAI 400051

¶8

3: GROUP GENERAL MANAGER (P)-SM OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. ROB-1 GROUNDN FLOOR NAZIRA P.O. AND P.S. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR PIN 785685

¶9

4: ASSET MANAGER (ED)

¶10

ASSAM ASSET OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. P.O. AND P.S. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR PIN 78568 VERSUS

¶11

RAJIB HAZARIKA AND ANR

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

S/O LATE PROBIN HAZARIKA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B.P. CHALIA ROAD, MELACHAKAR, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN 785640

¶14

2:MS/ SOUTH ASIA CONSULTANCY

¶15

PROPRIETOR SRI DHARAMSIH RAJPUT 402 ORANGE MALL NEAR CHANDHEDA BUS STAND CHANDHEDA AHMEDABAD GUJARAT PIN 38242

¶16

For the appellants : Mr. I Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate

¶17

For the respondents : Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate

¶18

Assisted by Mr. R. Sarmah and Ms. S. Sharma, Advocates for Respondent No.1

¶19

– B E F O R E –

¶20

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶21

09-04-2025

¶22

(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)

¶23

This writ appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.(Civil) 666/2025 in WP(C) 715/2025.

¶24

The above-referred writ petition is filed by the respondent No.1 herein challenging the online list published on 03.01.2025 by the appellant Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ONGC’) notifying the financial

¶25

Page No.# 3/6

¶26

rates wherein the respondent No.2 herein was found to be L-1. It has been prayed that the appellant ONGC authorities be directed to cancel/recall/rescind and/or otherwise be forbidden from giving effect to the impugned online list published on 03.01.2025 declaring the respondent No.2 herein as technically qualified bidder. Certain ancillary relief has also been prayed in the said writ petition.

¶27

Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the writ petition was filed on 10.02.2025 and on the very first day of listing of the case, i.e. 12.02.2025, the respondent No.1 projected before the learned Single Judge that the appellants were proceeding to allot the tender in favour of the respondent No.2 herein. Therefore, it was necessary for the Writ Court to restrict the process undertaken by the ONGC authority for allotment of tender in respect of the respondent No.2, who was not qualified in terms of the eligibility criteria provided. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that taking note of this submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein before the Writ Court, the Writ Court, while issuing notice to the ONGC authorities as well as the respondent No.2 herein, has ordered that till the next date fixed, the appellant ONGC shall not proceed to allot the work order in respect of the NIT dated 06.06.2024.

¶28

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has invited our attention towards Clause 33.2 of the NIT which shows that the Notification of Award will constitute the formation of the contract. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has contended that as a matter of fact, in the present case the Notification of Award, which amounts to issuance of work order, was issued on 14.01.2025 itself but the respondent No.1 herein (writ petitioner) did not disclose this fact before the learned Single Judge at the time of initial hearing and made a categorical statement that the work order had not been issued in favour of the

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

respondent No.2 herein and therefore, the Writ Court was required to interfere with the matter. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the learned Single Judge, relying on the said statement made on behalf of the respondent No.1, has passed the stay order dated 12.02.2025.

¶31

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that an application was moved on behalf of the appellants before the Writ Court seeking vacation/modification of the ex-parte interim order dated 12.02.2025. However, the learned Single Judge despite taking note of the fact that before passing the exparte interim order dated 12.02.2025 by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the work order had already been issued, has proceeded to modify the ex-parte interim order dated 12.02.2025 to the extent that the appellants are restrained to give effect to the Notification of Award dated 14.01.2025 and has also restrained from signing any contract agreement with the respondent No.2 herein. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.03.2025 in I.A.(Civil) 666/2025 are absolutely unwarranted.

¶32

It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, the Notification of Award dated 14.01.2025, which amounts to issuance of work order, is not even challenged before the learned Single Judge because the amendment application preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1 herein before the Writ Court seeking to challenge the Notification of Award dated 14.01.2025 has not been considered till date. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Writ Court dated 12.02.2025 and 18.03.2025 may kindly be set aside.

¶33

Per contra, Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the writ appeal and submitted that as a matter of fact, the

¶34

Page No.# 5/6

¶35

fact regarding the Notification of Award was very well pleaded in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the ex-parte interim order dated 12.02.2025 as well as the order dated 18.03.2025 whereby the ex-parte interim order has been modified.

¶36

Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 has further submitted that on merit also, the respondent No.1 is having a strong case because it is apparent that the respondent No.2 herein was not technically eligible but the ONGC authorities have illegally declared him eligible for award of the contract in question.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the impugned orders as well as the material available on record, we are of the prima facie view that initially the learned Single Judge has passed the ex-parte interim order on 12.02.2025 taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) to the effect that the Notification of Award or work order had not been issued whereas, in fact, the same had been issued on 14.01.2025 itself. Though the learned Single Judge, while modifying the ex-parte interim order vide order dated 18.03.2025, has noted and appreciated the said fact but restrained the ONGC authorities, without assigning proper reasons, from giving effect to the Notification of Award dated 14.01.2025 which amounts to execution of the work order. It is also to be appreciated that the Notification of Award dated 14.01.2025 has still not been put to a formal challenge before the learned Single Judge because the amendment application seeking interference with the Notification of Award preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1 herein has not been considered till date.

¶38

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned orders passed by the Writ Court on 12.02.2025 and 18.03.2025 in WP(C) 715/2025 and I.A.(Civil)

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

666/2025, respectively cannot be sustained and the same are, therefore, interfered with and are set aside.

¶41

However, it is made clear that the award of contract to the respondent No.2 herein by the appellants ONGC, which is questioned before the Writ Court, will remain subject to the final decision of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 715/2025. It is expected that the learned Single Judge shall hear the writ petition expeditiously.

¶42

With the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of.

¶43

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors. v. Rajib Hazarika and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors. v. Rajib Hazarika and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padma Dhar Das Vs Mamata Hojai

The Director (Commercial and Hrd), Wapco Ltd. and Anr. Vs Baijayanta Bhattacharjee and 3 Ors.

Arun Narzary Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Abdul Alim Khan and 2 Ors.

The State of Assam Vs Abdul Alim Khan

The Union of India Vs Kalpana Hazarika