Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010023972025
2025:GAU-AS:1653-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/42/2025
SUNIL DAS AND ANR
SON OF LATE DINARAM DAS VILLAGE - KALOOGAON, POST OFFICE -
KALOOGAON POLICE STATION - JOYSAGAR, DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR PIN-
785666, ASSAM
2: ABDUL MUMIN SON OF LATE ABDUL MUKIT VILLAGE - BALIGHAT
BORDUWAR MUKH POST OFFICE - GARGAON
DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR PIN - 785685 ASSAM
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW
DELHI-110001
2:THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR OIL AND NATURAL GAS
CORPORATION REGISTERED OFFICE AT DEENDAYAL URJA BHAVAN 5 A
NELSON MANDELA MARG BASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI PIN-110070
3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
NAZIRA POST OFFICE - NAZIRA
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR PIN- 785685 ASSAM
4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER OIL AND NATURAL GAS
CORPORATION HEAD MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
CONTACT CELL ASSAM ASSET ROB-II FIRST FLOOR NAZIRA
POST OFFICE - NAZIRA DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR PIN- 785685 ASSAM
5:THE IN CHARGE LOGISTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
ASSAM ASSET SIVASAGAR DISTRICT-SIVASAGAR PIN- 785640 ASSAM
6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR DISTRICT SIVASAGAR PIN-
785640 ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : R LAKRA, MS. S DAS,MS. D GOSWAMI,MR. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., FOR CAVEATOR,MR. M K DAS,GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
:::BEFORE:::
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 14.02.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 14.02.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. Avijit Roy, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
appellants. Also heard Mr. Indraneel Chowdhury, learned senior counsel,
assisted by Mr. M. K. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of
respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5; and Mr. N. Das, learned Government
Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.
2. The appellants, herein, by way of instituting the present intra-Court
appeal, have presented a challenge to an order, dated 08.01.2025, passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)63/2025, dismissing the same.
3. Assailing the terms and conditions so set-out in a Notice Inviting
Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024; persons aggrieved, had approached the
writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4108/2024. The
learned Single Judge on considering the issues so arising in the matter, was
pleased vide judgment & order, dated 25.09.2024, to dismiss the said writ
petition.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners in WP(c)4108/2024, had assailed the
judgment & order, dated 25.09.2024, by way of instituting an intra-Court
Page No.# 3/7
appeal being WA No. 365/2024 before the writ Court. The co-ordinate
Bench of this Court on consideration of the issues arising in WA No.
365/2024, was pleased vide judgment & order, dated 08.11.2024, to
dismiss the said writ appeal by holding that the conclusions so drawn by
the learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 25.09.2024, in
WP(c)4108/2024, would not mandate any interference.
5. The conclusions so drawn by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment & order, dated 08.11.2024, in WA No. 365/2024, being relevant,
is extracted hereinbelow:
"31. The discussions as made hereinabove would go to demonstrate that the
conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge and extracted hereinabove, are not
perverse and/or contrary to the settled principles of law pertaining to issuance of the
Notice Inviting Tenders and the same is also in tune with the factual matrix as
involved in the matter leading to the issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated
31.07.2024, and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the said conclusions
would not call for any interference.
32. It is also to be noted that in pursuance of the said tender process, around
28,000 applications were received and the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
(ONGCL) authorities in terms of the provisions of the said Notice Inviting Tender(NIT),
had already short-listed applicants for award of the contracts. The said tender
conditions also provides for submission of the performance security by the selected
contractor in the manner as prescribed therein and it also provides for liquidated
damages for default in timely mobilization of the vehicles and completion of the
works, involved. The said provisions as incorporated in the said tender, protects the
interests of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.(ONGCL) authorities and would go
to ensure that the applicants awarded with the contracts, executes the same in the
manner as required. Accordingly, the conditions as incorporated in the Notice Inviting
Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024, cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary and/or
discriminatory."
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment & order, dated 25.09.2024, passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4108/2024, as well as the judgment &
order, dated 08.11.2024, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WA No. 365/2024; the appellants, herein, had approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by way of instituting a Special Leave Petition(Civil) Dairy
No(s). 55927/2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, dated
Page No.# 4/7
20.12.2024; basing on the submissions so made by the learned counsel for
the appellants, herein, seeking permission to withdraw the petition with a
view to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court as may be
permissible under the law, was pleased to grant the permission and the
said Special Leave to Appeal(C) was dismissed as withdrawn. The order so
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition(Civil)
Dairy No(s). 55927/2024, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:
"1. After arguing for some time and on our expressing reservation in entertaining the
present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw
the present petition, with a view to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court,
as may be permissible under the law.
2. The permission to withdraw is granted.
3. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn."
7. The appellants, herein, thereafter, approached the writ Court by way
of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)63/2025, assailing the Notice
Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024, on the ground that the
prescription of upper age limit of 55 years for being eligible for applying in
pursuance thereto; being contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988, would mandate an interference.
8. The learned Single Judge upon noticing the challenge so made and
the earlier proceedings pertaining to the challenge to the said Notice
Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024; was pleased, vide order, dated
08.01.2025, to dismiss the said writ petition being WP(c)63/2025, by
holding that it would not be permissible to the writ Court to sit in appeal
over a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Court which has been
affirmed by a Division Bench. The learned Single Judge further proceeded
to hold that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench as well as the Division
Bench of this Court in WP(c)4108/2024 and WA No. 365/2024, respectively,
Page No.# 5/7
having attained finality; cannot be allowed to be re-agitated by way of filing
a writ petition over and over again, in a similar proceeding. The learned
Single Judge also proceeded to notice that the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT),
in question, was taken to its logical conclusion and letters of acceptance
pursuant to, were issued to 372 applicants who were also not impleaded in
the said writ petition. Basing on the said conclusions; the learned Single
Judge refused to exercise his discretion in the matter and proceeded to
dismiss the said writ petition being WP(c)63/2025.
9. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants, herein, has limited his
challenge to the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024, to the
provisions of Clause 4.0(e) of the tender document. In terms of the
provisions of Clause 4.0(e) of the tender document, it is prescribed that in
the event, the age of the applicant is found be above 55 years as on the
original date of receipt of the tender/application then the tender would be
rejected outright. It has been submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel, that
in view of the said condition so incorporated in the tender document;
persons above 55 years of age would not be eligible to participate in the
tender process and the appellants, herein, being experienced contractors,
were denied an opportunity to participate in the process so initiated vide
the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024, in-as-much as, they
had crossed the age of 55 years as on the date so mandated for submission
of the application pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Tender(NIT).
10. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No. 365/2024, while
considering a challenge so made to the tender conditions so incorporated in
the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024, had also considered the
Page No.# 6/7
challenge so made in respect of Clause 4(e) of the tender document
pertaining to the prescription of upper age limit for being eligible to
participate in the tender process. The challenge to the prescription of age
limit was to the effect that such prescription was restrictive in nature and
the same had the effect of rendering many eligible persons ineligible to
submit their applications in pursuance of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT),
dated 31.07.2024. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court on considering the
said challenge, more particularly, the challenge so made with regard to the
prescription of age qualification, had, by noticing the objective behind
issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024, refused to
interfere with the prescription so made in the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT),
in question, with regard to the age limit entitling an applicant to apply in
pursuance of the said Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) only if such applicant is
between the age of 18 and 55 years. It was concluded that the said
condition in the background of facts so existing in the matter, cannot be
held to be unreasonable.
11. The challenge as made to the provisions of the Notice Inviting
Tender(NIT), dated 31.07.2024, having been rejected by the learned Single
Judge vide judgment & order, dated 25.09.2024, in WP(c)4108/2024, and
the same having been affirmed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment & order, dated 08.11.2024, in WA No. 365/2024; the same issue
cannot be permitted to be re-agitated by the appellants, herein, by way of
instituting a separate proceeding. The decision of the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, which has attained finality, is binding on us and it would not be
permissible for us to take a contrary view in the matter.
Page No.# 7/7
12. Accordingly, the proceeding so instituted by the appellants, herein,
pursuant to the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition(Civil), referred to
above, before the writ Court, nor, the present intra-Court appeal can be
construed to be a proceeding so permissible under the law and
consequently, the conclusions so drawn in the matter by the learned Single
Judge vide order, dated 08.01.2025, in WP(c)63/2025, would not mandate
an interference from this Court.
13. In view of the above conclusions reached by us and also considering
that the issue, in question, was already adjudicated by a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court; we are of the considered view that the present writ appeal is
held to be bereft of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
