Allowed¶29

Sri Rajib Hazarika v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (Ongc) 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Jul 2026Review.Pet./82/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: review petition; recall of judgment; discovery of new and important evidence; ONGC procurement/tender; technical bid evaluation; scrapping winches; M/s Quickedge Integrated LLP; Purchase Agreement; incomplete documents; due diligence; Right to Information Act, 2005; portal documents; WP(C) No. 5768/2025; WP(C) No. 6369/2025; Gauhati High Court; Devashis Baruah, J.; Rajib Hazarika v. ONGC & Ors.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 recalled only to the extent of considering the new and important evidence (Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly)), with findings on other aspects attaining finality. ¶29

Sri Rajib Hazarika Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (Ongc) 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out a case for review of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence (Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly)) which, even with due diligence, could not have been discovered at the time of filing the writ petition or when that judgment was passed. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The petitioner has been able to make out a case of discovery of new and important evidence touching upon the technical evaluation of respondent No. 5, which was not available to the petitioner either at the time of filing of WP(C) No. 5768/2025 or when the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 was passed.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 is recalled, but only to the extent of considering the new and important evidence, i.e. Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly).

¶28

Key takeaways

In respect of the other aspects already dealt with in the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025, the findings therein have attained finality.ratio¶28
The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the impact of Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly) on the evaluation of the technical bid of respondent No. 5, leaving that point open.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.), 16.07.2026 — Review.Pet./82/2026 (Sri Rajib Hazarika v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) & Ors.): Review of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 allowed on the ground of subsequent discovery of new and important evidence, namely Annexure-3 (the Purchase Agreement) and Annexure-4 (colly) (the agreement between respondent No. 5 and M/s Quickedge Integrated LLP, the manufacturer and supplier of scrapping winches), which, per the petitioner, showed that the documents relied upon by respondent No. 5 were incomplete. The Court held such evidence was not available to the petitioner, even with due diligence, either at the time of filing the writ petition or when the earlier judgment was passed. The earlier judgment stands recalled only to the extent of considering the new evidence; findings on all other aspects have attained finality. The impact of the documents on the technical bid evaluation of respondent No. 5 was expressly left open. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did not question the petitioner's lack of knowledge of the documents but raised due diligence (availability under the Right to Information Act, 2005) and non-disclosure of the source of the documents; counsel for the petitioner stated the documents remain unavailable on the portal and that WP(C) No. 6369/2025, filed after obtaining them, had a technical defect, prompting this review.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010247522025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Review.Pet./82/2026

¶6

SRI RAJIB HAZARIKA S/O LATE PROBIN HAZARIKA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B.P. CHALIHA ROAD MELACHAKAR DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (ONGC) 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT -5A- 5B NELSON MANDELA ROAD VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI 110070 2:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (MM) CENTRAL LOGISTIC AND PRODUCTION SERVICES PROCUREMENT GROUP CENTRAL PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT ONGC 7TH FLOOR NBP GREEN HEIGHTS K BANDRA E MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA 400051 3:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (MM) CENTRAL LOGISTICS AND PRODUCTION SERVICES GROUP CENTRAL PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT

¶9

Page No.# 2/5

¶10

ONGC 15TH FLOOR MAKER TOWER E CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR CUFFE PARADE MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-400005 4:SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) CENTRAL LOGISTICS AND PRODUCTION SERVICES PROCUREMENT GROUP CLPG CENTRA PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT CPD ONGC 15TH FLOOR MAKER TOWER E CUFFE PARADE MUMBAI-400005 5:NIRMAL KUMAR SHARMA 12 APSARA READYMADE J.P. AGARWALA PATH NEAR LACHIT PARK SIVASAGAR ASSAM -785640. -----------For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Sarmah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. I. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. P. Baruah, Advocate Mr. L.N. Dihingia, Advocate

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 16.07.2026

¶14

Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Baruah, the learned counsel appears

¶15

Page No.# 3/5

¶16

on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. L.N. Dihingia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

¶17

This is a review application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 solely on the ground that subsequent to the judgment passed by this Court on 26.09.2025, the petitioner discovered new and important evidence which even with due diligence could not have been discovered by the petitioner either at the time of filing of the writ petition or when the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 was passed.

¶18

The new and important evidence are the documents enclosed as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly) to the review application.

¶19

Annexure-3 is the Purchase Agreement and Annexure-4 (colly) is the agreement entered into by and between the respondent No. 5 and M/s Quickedge Integrated LLP, the manufacturer and supplier of scrapping winches.

¶20

It is the specific case of the petitioner that these two documents would show that the documents relied upon by the respondent No. 5 were incomplete in nature and, therefore, ought not to have been taken into consideration by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 while evaluating the technical bid of the

¶21

Page No.# 4/5

¶22

respondent No. 5.

¶23

Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 fairly submitted that the respondents do not question the petitioner's lack of knowledge of these documents. However, questions the petitioner's due diligence on the ground that the petitioner could have sought these documents by filing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a perusal of paragraph 9 of the review application would show that the petitioner has not disclosed the source of the two documents enclosed as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly) to the review application.

¶24

Per contra, Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even as on today the said documents are not available for viewing on the portal. The petitioner somehow managed to get the documents only recently and immediately thereafter filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 6369/2025. The learned counsel further submitted that the said writ petition had a technical defect in view of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 for which the present review application was filed.

¶25

Taking into account the above and without commenting on

¶26

Page No.# 5/5

¶27

the impact of Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly) in respect to the evaluation of the technical bid of the respondent No. 5, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of discovery of new and important evidence touching upon the technical evaluation of the respondent No. 5 which was not available to the petitioner either at the time of filing of WP(C) No. 5768/2025 or when the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 was passed.

¶28

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 is required to be recalled, but only to the extent of considering the new and important evidence, i.e. Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly). However, in respect to the other aspects which have been already dealt with in the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025, the findings therein had attained finality.

¶29

The review petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforementioned observations.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Sri Rajib Hazarika v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (Ongc) 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajib Hazarika v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (Ongc) 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulal Khakhalary Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Hakim Ali Vs the State of Assam

Md. Rafiquddin and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Sri Prasan Trading Company Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Edingson Khongnohbeh Vs Barduar Tea and Timber Co. Ltd.

M/S Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.