Joy Sankar Medical and Anr. Vs the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010016462025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/415/2025

¶5

JOY SANKAR MEDICAL AND ANR

¶6

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTER OFFICE NEAR ONGC CINNAMORA, JORHAT, DISTRICT-JORHAT, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI KHIRUD SAIKIA

¶7

2: SRI KHIRUD SAIKIA PROPRIETOR OF JOY SANKAR MEDICAL S/O-LATE SARAT SAIKIA R/O-BAGHDHARA CHARIALI P. O. -CINNAMORA DISTRICT-JORHAT ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO HAVING ITS REGISTER OFFICE AT DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN, 5A NELSON MANDELA MARG, BASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070

¶10

2:THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO

¶11

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN 5A NELSON MANDELA MARG BASANT KUNJ NEE DELHI-110070

¶12

3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASSET MANAGER ONGCL ASSAM ASSET NAZIRA ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

4:MEDICAL OFFICER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD A AND AA BASIN CINNAMORA JORHAT-785704 DISTRICT-JORHAT ASSAM 5:ENQUIRY OFFICER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD OFFICE OF THE GM (ELECTRICAL) NO. II BUILDING TOP FLOOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ONGC LTD CINNAMORA JORHAT-78570

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MS. P BORAH

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR S CHAKRABORTY (R-4),

¶17

Linked Case : WP(C)/413/2025

¶18

NORTH EAST MEDICAL AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTER OFFICE A. T. ROAD JORHAT DISTRICT-JORHAT ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SATADAL GHOSH 2: SRI SATADAL GHOSH PROPRIETOR OF NORTH EAST MEDICAL S/O-LATE NARENDRA CH. GHOSH R/O-J.B. ROAD NEAR SBI ATM JORHAT EAST JORHAT P. O. AND DISTRICT-JORHAT ASSAM VERSUS

¶19

THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS

¶20

Page No.# 3/6

¶21

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO HAVING ITS REGISTER OFFICE AT DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN 5A NELSON MANDELA MARG BASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070 2:THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN 5A NELSON MANDELA MARG BASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070 3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASSET MANAGER ONGCL ASSAM ASSET NAZIRA ASSAM 4:MEDICAL OFFICER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD A AND AA BASIN CINNAMORA JORHAT-785704 DISTRICT-JORHAT ASSAM 5:ENQUIRY OFFICER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD OFFICE OF THE GM (ELECTRICAL) NO. II BUILDING TOP FLOOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ONGC LTD CINNAMORA JORHAT-785704 -----------Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for : MR S CHAKRABORTY (R-4) appearing for THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

16.06.2025

¶25

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶28

2. The petitioner No. 2 is a registered vendor under the ONGC Limited and the proprietor of the petitioner No. 1. Pursuant to the NIT issued by the ONGC in the year 2019 for empanelment of a Chemist shop at Jorhat area, the contract work for supply of medicines to the ONGC workers and the CISF personnels was awarded to the petitioners. The petitioners’ case is that though they have submitted their bills for supply of medicines, the same has not been paid to them by the respondents.

¶29

3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the enquiry conducted by the respondent authorities against the petitioners, for allegedly raising inflated bills for supply of medicines and the proposal to ban the petitioners for the said act.

¶30

4. The petitioners’ further prayer is to direct the respondents to pay the bills of the petitioners amounting to Rs. 1,68,14,841/- in WP(C) 415/2025 and Rs.16,427,450/- in WP(C) 413/2025, for supply of medicines to the beneficiaries of the ONGC employees during the period from 16.01.2022 to 30.06.2022.

¶31

5. The learned counsel for the respondents representing the ONGC, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition should be dismissed, in view of the fact that the enquiry that had been initiated against the petitioners has resulted in the issuance of a banning order dated 16.01.2024, banning the petitioners from having any business dealings with the ONGC for a period of two years, which order was communicated to the petitioners by e-mail and by speed post/registered post.

¶32

6. The counsel for the respondents further submits that the claim of the

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

petitioners for payment of his supply bills would have to be decided by a Civil Court, in view of the fact that the petitioners had earlier filed WP(C) 7185/2023 and WP(C) 7179/2023 respectively with regard to the same issue. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2024 passed in WP(C) 7185/2023 and WP(C) 7179/2023 had stated that, there being no acknowledgment of the liability of the petitioners by the respondents, the question of maintainability of the writ petition would arise and the appropriate remedy would have to be the Civil Court. However, the petitioners’ counsel was allowed to file an additionalaffidavit, to bring on record any acknowledgment of liability of the dues of the petitioners by the respondents, as per the order dated 10.01.2024 passed in WP(C) 7185/2023 and WP(C) 7179/2023.

¶35

7. The petitioners not having been able to provide the Court with the acknowledgment of the petitioners dues by the respondents, this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed in WP(C) 7185/2023 and WP(C) 7179/2023, had given one last chance to the petitioners, to submit the admission made by the respondents regarding the amount claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter withdrew WP(C) 7185/2023 and WP(C) 7179/2023 on 26.02.2024, with liberty being given to file writ petitions afresh.

¶36

8. The petitioners have now filed the present writ petitions, claiming that they are entitled to be paid Rs. 1,68,14,841/- in WP(C) 415/2025 and Rs.16,427,450/- in WP(C) 413/2025 by the respondents. However, there is nothing to show in the present writ petitions also, that the respondents have admitted their liabilities/dues, as claimed by the petitioners.

¶37

9. In view of the fact that the petitioners have not put to challenge the

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

banning order dated 16.01.2024, the present petitions are not maintainable unless and until a challenge is made to the banning order dated 16.01.2024. Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioners to challenge the banning order dated 16.01.2024 by way of a fresh writ petition, if so advised.

¶40

10. With regard to the petitioners’ prayer for payment of their contractual dues, this Court finds that there are disputed questions of fact, which have to be decided by the Civil Court.

¶41

11. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed, by giving liberty to the petitioners for redressal of their grievance, by approaching the Civil Court, wherein evidence can be recorded for determining whether the petitioners are to be paid their bills for supply of medicines to the employees of the ONGC.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Joy Sankar Medical and Anr. v. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Sankar Medical and Anr. v. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

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

M/S Geramari Gaon Panchayat Meen Samabay Samity Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Bhupen Killing Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/S Century Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. and 17 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Pashupati Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

North Eastern Drilling and Workover Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oil India Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Ahmad Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.