Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1807 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 8 January, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                               Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010001882025




                                                         2025:GAU-AS:221

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/63/2025

         SUNIL DAS AND ANR
         S/OLATE DINARAM DAS
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALOOGAON, PO KALOOGAON, PS JOYSAGAR,
         DSIT SIVASAGAR, ASSAM 785666

         2: SRI ABDUL MUMIN

         S/O LATE ABDUL MUKIT RESIDENT OF BALIGHAT
         BORDUWAR MUKH
         PO GARGAON
         DIST SIVASAGAR
         ASSAM 78568

         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
         OF PETROLUEM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
         110001

         2:THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR
          OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
          REGD. OFFICE AT DEEN DAYAL URJA BHAWAN
          5A
          NELSON MANDELA MARG
          BASANT KUNJ
          NEW DELHI 110070

         3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASSET MANAGER
          OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
          PO NAZIRA DIST SIVASAGAR
         ASSAM 785685

         4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
                                                                         Page No.# 2/6


             OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
             HEAD MATERIAL MANAGAMENT
             CONTACT CELL ASSAM ASSET
             ROB II
             FIRST FLOOR
             NAZIRA
             PO NAZIRA
             DIST SIVASAGAR
             ASSAM 785685

            5:THE IN CHARGE LOGISTIC
             OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
            ASSAM ASSET SIVASAGAR
            ASSAM 785640

            6:TE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
             SIVASAGAR
            ASSAM 78564

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A AHMED, R LAKRA,MS. S DAS,MS. D GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ONGC




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                         ORDER

Date : 08-01-2025

Heard Mr. Abhijit Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that he has filed vakalatnama today.

2. The petitioners' case is that the impugned Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as the "NIT") being Tender No. R16DC24005 dated 31.07.2024 for "hiring of services of Brand new 372 Nos. of Light Vehicles (Taxi) for Assam Asset for a period of 04 (four) years on lottery basis" should be set aside, in view of the law being changed regarding the fixation of the upper age limit of 55 years for applicants in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Page No.# 3/6

3. The petitioners' counsel submits that though the challenge to the NIT had been initially made by other persons in WP(C) 4108/2024 before a learned Single Bench of this Court, the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2024. The challenge to the judgment and order dated 25.09.2024 passed in WP(C) 4108/2024 vide a writ appeal, i.e., WA 365/2024, was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 08.11.2024. As such, the validity of the NIT was upheld by this Court and no challenge was made to the same, by the parties in WP(C) 4108/2024 and WA 365/2024.

4. The petitioners herein, who were aggrieved with the judgment and orders passed in WP(C) 4108/2024 and WA 365/2024 filed SLP(C) Diary No. (s) 55927/2024 before the Supreme Court of India. However, the same was withdrawn by the petitioners. The order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Supreme Court allowing the petitioners to withdraw the SLP(C) Diary No. (s) 55927/2024 is reproduced herein below as follows:-

"ORDER

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."

5. The petitioners' counsel submits that as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the petitioners to withdraw the SLP and file an appropriate proceeding Page No.# 4/6

before the High Court in terms of the order passed in the SLP, the present writ petition, praying for setting aside the NIT is maintainable. Accordingly, this Court should go into the question whether the NIT should be set aside or not, keeping in view the change in law regarding fixation of an upper age limit of an applicant in relation to the NIT issued by the ONGC.

6. Mr. I Chowdhury, learned senior counsel for the ONGC/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, as this Court is not an appellate authority, with regard to the judgment and order passed by a co- ordinate Bench in WP(C) 4108/2024, which has upheld the validity of the NIT. The co-ordinate Bench decision having been upheld by the Division Bench in WA 365/2024, this Court cannot go beyond the decision passed by the Division Bench and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. The learned senior counsel for the ONGC further submits that though there are other points which can be agitated, regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, one major issue is the non-joinder of the necessary parties, inasmuch as, the tender process, in pursuant to the NIT has already been finalised. For the hiring of 372 vehicles, 247 agreements have been executed and 361 vehicles have already been mobilised. Further, letter of acceptance has been issued to 372 persons. The petitioners would thus have to implead the 372 persons whose tenders have been accepted, as any decision by this Court could cause prejudice to the rights and interest of the 372 persons to whom the letter of Acceptance have been issued.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Page No.# 5/6

9. As can be seen from the facts enumerated above by the petitioners' counsel, the NIT which has been put to challenge in this writ petition has been upheld by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) 4108/2024 and WA 365/2024. The operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in WA 365/2024 at para 31 to 32, is reproduced herein below:-

"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.

Page No.# 6/6

10. This Court cannot sit in appeal over a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. The above being said, the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No. (s) 55927/2024 records that the petitioners had stated that they would file appropriate proceedings before the High Court. The latter part of the Supreme Court does not say that permission has been granted to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court. It only shows that permission to withdraw the SLP had been granted. Be that as it may, the decisions of the co- ordinate Bench and the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 4108/2024 and WA 365/2024 cannot be challenged by way of this writ petition, as a decision which has attained finality in a writ petition cannot be re-agitated over and over again, in a similar proceeding. Further as the NIT has been concluded and letters of Acceptance have been issued to 372 persons, the petitioners would have to implead all the 372 persons whose rights could be effected by any action taken by the petitioners.

11. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, does not find any reason to exercise its discretion in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant