[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Shri Hitesh Dutta vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd on 19 December, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010285192025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7418/2025
SHRI HITESH DUTTA
S/O- LATE RUPESWAR DUTTA.
R/O- BOKHOTA, P.O.- NANGALAMORA, DIST.- SIVSAGAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PANDIT DEEN
DAYAL UPADHAYAYA URJA BHAVAN, 5, NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANTA KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070, AND
REGIONAL OFFICE AT NAZIRA IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVSAGAR, ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EASTERN REGION ,
ONGCL, NAZIRA, ASSAM, PIN- 785684.
2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ASSAM ASSET
NAZIRA
SIVSAGAR
ASSAM.
3:THE GROUP GENERAL MANAGER
HEAD CCLG-CPD
8TH FLOOR
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
CCLG- LAKSHMINAGAR
NEW DELHI-110092.
4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINNER CPD-CCLG DELHI
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED SCOPE MINAR LAXMI
NAGAR
Page No.# 2/5
NEW DELHI
5:ENQUIRY OFFICER
GM(P)- HSE
ONGC
MH ASSET
MUMBAI
VASUDHARA BHAVAN
BANDRA EAST
MUMBAI-400051
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. P. J. Saikia, Sr. Advocate
Ms. M. Nirola, Advocate
For the respondent (s) : Mr. P. Baruah, Advocate
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
19.12.2025
Issue notice making it returnable on 21.01.2026.
2. Mr. P. Baruah, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
all the respondents. Extra copies of the writ petition be served
upon him during the course of the day.
3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of its
technical bid vide the communication dated 02.09.2025 on the
ground that the petitioner had violated Clause 2.1(b) of the
Integrity Pact, (understanding between bidders in an attempt to
restrict competitiveness or introduce cartelization of bids). The
petitioner is further aggrieved that upon rejection of the
Page No.# 3/5
petitioner's technical bid, the Respondent Authorities have also
issued a show cause notice on 08.12.2024 thereby initiating a
process for blacklisting the petitioner.
4. Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not going to
contest as regards the rejection of the technical bid qua the
contract, but however, the petitioner would contest the email dated
02.09.2025 whereby the petitioner's bid has been rejected on an
absolutely untenable ground, that is, the petitioner had violated
Clause 2.1 (b) of the Integrity Pact. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegation
as would be seen from the show cause notice dated 08.12.2024
would show that both the petitioner and another bidder have used
the same IP address. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that
the IP address was in respect to a Cyber Cafe which the petitioner
had used for uploading his bid. The petitioner is not aware about
the other bidder who had also used the same IP address. In that
regard, the learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s S. K.
Translines Private Limited vs. the Maharashtra State Warehousing
Corporation Limited dated 11.07.2016 wherein the learned Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court had observed that mere using of
the same IP address cannot result in formation of a cartel.
Page No.# 4/5
5. This Court have also heard Mr. P. Baruah, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents who submitted that in the
meantime, the LoI has already been issued in respect to the tender
in question. The learned counsel for the respondents also
submitted that the question as to whether there is a violation of
the Integrity Pact can be decided in the said show cause
proceedings as it is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated
in the instant proceedings. The learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court as per the
settled principles of law is only to see the decision making process.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the parties on the question as to whether interim directions are
required to be passed. The petitioner herein is not contesting the
rejection of its petitioner's technical bid qua the tender in question,
but the petitioner herein is contesting the reason why the technical
bid was rejected in as much as it is the case of the petitioner that
no case of violation of Clause 2.1 (b) of the Integrity Pact arises. It
is also seen that the Respondent Authorities have on a review
being sought for by the petitioner again rejected the said aspect.
Whether the rejection has been proper or not, this Court shall
consider at the later stages of the instant proceedings.
7. The question now arises is as regards the show cause notice.
It is the opinion of this Court that at this stage for this Court to
Page No.# 5/5
interfere in the said proceedings would not be proper. However, it
is observed that some limited interim directions are required to be
passed. Accordingly, this Court passes the following interim
directions:
(i) The petitioner herein is given the liberty to submit the
show cause reply to the proceedings initiated on the basis of
the show cause notice dated 08.12.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner seeks for a personal hearing, the
Respondent Authorities shall provide such personal hearing.
(iii) Liberty is further given to the respondents to decide the
show cause proceedings. However, the said decision shall not
be implemented without the leave of the Court till the next
date.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
