Page No.# 1/8 vs M/S S. H. Enterprise
2025 Latest Caselaw 4484 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs M/S S. H. Enterprise on 26 March, 2025

                                                                 Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010056382025




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:3469

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

                         Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/775/2025

         INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BONGAIGAON REFINERY,
         P.O. DHALIGAON, DISTRICT-CHIRANG, ASSAM-783385

         2: THE GENERAL MANAGER I/C (HR)

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
          BONGAIGAON REFINERY
          P.O. DHALIGAON
          DIST. CHIRANG
          ASSAM-783385.

         3: THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACTS)

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
          BONGAIGAON REFINERY
          P.O. DHALIGAON
          DIST. CHIRANG
          ASSAM-783385.

         4: THE SENIOR MANAGER (EMPLOYEE SERVICES)

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
          BONGAIGAON REFINERY
          P.O. DHALIGAON
          DIST. CHIRANG
          ASSAM-783385.

         5: THE CHIEF MANAGER (EMS)

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
          BONGAIGAON REFINERY
          P.O. DHALIGAON
          DIST. CHIRANG
                                                                        Page No.# 2/8

           ASSAM-783385

           VERSUS

           M/S S. H. ENTERPRISE
           A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OF MD SAFIQUL HUSSAIN , SON OF LATE
           HUSSAIN ALI , IS REPRESENTED BY TTS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
           MR SAFIQUAL HUSSAIN ,SON OF LATE HUSSAIN ALI ,BLOCK -B ,2nd
           FLOOR , GMCH ROAD, BHANGAGHAR, GUWAHATI,KAMRUP, ASSAM
           -781005



Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Tanuz Kashyap, MR. K N CHOUDHURY,N GAUTAM,MISS. R
R KAKATI ,MR. D J DAS,MR. TANUZ KASHYAP

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R SARMA, MR. D DEKA,MS P PHUKAN,MR. R SHARMA,
SR. ADV.




                                         BEFORE
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
                                         O R D E R

26.03.2025

Heard Mr. K.N Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R Kakati, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P Phukan, learned counsel for the sole opposite party/writ petitioner.

2. By this application, the applicants i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation Limited is praying for vacation/alteration/ modification of the interim order dated 12.02.2025 passed in WP(C) No.738/2025.

3. The sole opposite party as writ petitioner had filed WP(C) No.738/2025, challenging the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 01.02.2025 vide Bid No. DGEM/2025/B/5895438 and Tender Page No.# 3/8

No.BN25HRO18, by which invitations were made through electronic Bids for providing Catering Service and other services in BGR Guwahati Guest House and Office Complex at Joyanagar Road, Six Mile, Guwahati. It is the case of the sole opposite party in the said writ petition that the sole opposite party/writ petitioner was awarded a contract for providing Catering and other services in the Guest House and Office Complex of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bongaigaon Refinery at Guwahati at a total value of Rs.28,040,977.20/-. Certain issues arose between the parties with regard to the handing over the kitchen of the Guest House as well as other works. It was the case of the opposite party/writ petitioner that he was restrained from engaging its own workers and was forced to engage workers who had worked with the previous contractors. Accordingly, the sole opposite party filed WP(C) No.3804/2023. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the contract was terminated on 06.11.2023 and accordingly, the sole opposite party filed WP(C) No.6596/2023. Both the writ petitions namely WP(C) No.3804/2023 and WP(C) No.6596/2023 were disposed of by judgment and order dated 06.09.2024 and the operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-

"17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the termination order dated 06.11.2023 is interfered with. Consequently, the respondent- Refinery is directed to allow the petitioner to complete the contractual liabilities in terms of the work order dated 29.03.2023. It is also made clear that the respondent-Refinery cannot restrain the petitioner from engaging its own men for discharge of the duties.

18. Since the contract was for two years and because of the issue involved, the petitioner could not discharge the same, the petitioner would have the liberty to file application for allowing to discharge the functions for the full term and in case such application is made, the same would be considered by the respondent-Refinery in accordance with law and by passing of a speaking order."

Page No.# 4/8

4. Pursuant to the observations made by this Court by the judgment and order dated 06.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.3804/2023 and WP(C) No.6956/2023, the sole opposite party submitted an application requesting the applicants to allow the opposite party the full term for which the contract was awarded. However, by an order dated 22.10.2024, the applicants permitted the opposite party to complete the contractual obligations of the contract for the remaining period of contract up to 30.04.2025 making it subject to the outcome of the writ appeal filed by one Sri Dilip Kumar Sarma and others. Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.10.2024, the opposite party again filed WP(C) No.6142/2024, wherein notice was issued on 22.11.2024.

5. During the pendency of WP(C) NO.6142/2024, the applicants issued another NIT dated 01.02.2025 inviting Bids for providing Catering and other services at BGR Guwahati Guest House and Office Complex at Joyanagar Road, Six Mile, Guwahati vide Tender No.BN25HRO18 for a contract period of two years. Therefore, the sole opposite party again filed WP(C) No.738/2025 challenging the NIT dated 01.02.2025 vide Bid No.DGM/2025/ B/5895438 and Tender No.BN25HRO18 on the ground that if the tender process is allowed to proceed, the opposite party in spite of having orders from this Court, will not be permitted to operate his tender for the full two years. This Court issued notice on 12.02.2025 and also passed an interim order directing that the tender process initiated by the NIT dated 01.02.2025 shall not be finalized without the leave of this Court till the next date fixed.

6. Hence the present interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants for vacation/alteration/ modification of the said interim order Page No.# 5/8

dated 12.02.2025.

7. Mr. K.N Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the sole opposite party has not participated in the NIT dated 01.02.2025 and therefore, the sole opposite party/writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court towards the NIT dated 01.02.2025. It is submitted that the opposite party failed to carry out the job of running the service of the Guest House at Six Mile, Guwahati following which a show cause notice was served to the opposite party for leaving the work site and failure to carry out the execution of the contract and accordingly the contract was terminated with the opposite party by issuing the order dated 06.11.2023. The said termination order dated 06.11.2023 was challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No.6596/2023 and this Court after hearing the parties had disposed of the said writ petition by the judgment dated 06.09.2024 directing the applicants to allow the opposite party to complete the contractual liabilities in terms of the Work Order dated 29.03.2023. This Court further observed that as the contract was for two years and because of the issues involved the opposite party could not discharge the same, the opposite party would have the liberty to file an application for allowing to discharge the function for the full term and in the event if any such application is made, the same would be considered by the applicants in accordance with law by passing of a speaking order.

8. It is submitted that thereafter, the applicants had permitted the sole opposite party to complete the contractual obligations for the remaining period of contract up to 30.04.2025 by order dated 22.10.2024. He also submits that the contractual obligations of the opposite party would be coming to an end on 30.04.2025 and therefore, the applicants had issued Page No.# 6/8

the NIT dated 01.02.2025 by taking into consideration that the applicant's office at Six Mile, Joyanagar Road, handles liaison works with Central Government Government/State Government Departments and along with the said office, there is also an attached Guest House, which provides accommodation for the visiting IOCL Employees, the State Government and Central Government Officials and therefore, there is a requirement for providing essential services like catering to the House Keeping, room Services to the guests and patients staying in the Guest House. Therefore, in order to see that there is continuous catering and other services in the transition period after 30.04.2025, the NIT dated 01.02.2025 was initiated by the applicants for providing catering and other services in the BGR, Guwahati Guest House and Office Complex at Joyanagar Road, Six Mile. It is submitted that the sole opposite party has not participated in the Tender Notice dated 01.02.2025 and therefore, he has no right to challenge the NIT dated 01.02.2025 and on this ground alone, the interim order dated 12.02.2025 deserves to be vacated.

9. Mr. R. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party/writ petitioner on the other hand submits that after the judgment dated 06.09.2024 was passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 3804/2023 and WP(C) No.6596/2023, the applicants had permitted the opposite party to carry out the catering services only up to 30.04.2025, which is not in terms with the directions passed by this Court by the judgment dated 06.09.2024. Accordingly, the sole opposite party had filed WP(C) No.6142/2024, wherein notice was issued and the matter is still pending before this Court for disposal. During the pendency of the said WP(C) No.6142/2024, the applicants again issued the NIT dated 01.02.2025 Page No.# 7/8

seeking Bids for the same item categories and accordingly the sole opposite party filed WP(C) No.738/2025, wherein the interim order dated 12.02.2025 was passed by this Court. It is submitted that when there is a specific direction by the Court interfering with the termination of work order issued by the applicants and directing the applicants to permit the sole opposite party to operate the full period of the contract award, the applicants had failed to comply with the said direction forcing the petitioner to file WP(C) No.6142/2024. He accordingly submits that if the tender process is allowed to proceed, then the sole opposite party in spite of having orders from this Court, would not be permitted to operate the full term of two years and the vacation of the interim order dated 12.02.2025 would render WP(C) No.6142/2024 infructuous. In that view of the matter, he submits that the present interlocutory application should be dismissed.

10. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

11. This Court has noticed that the sole opposite party has filed WP(C) No.6142/2024 challenging the order dated 22.10.2024 by which the opposite party has been allowed to complete the contractual obligation of the contract up to 30.04.2025. The said writ petition is still pending for disposal.

12. During the pendency of WP(C) No.6142/2024, the applicants issued the NIT dated 01.02.2025 seeking Bids for providing catering and other services in BGR Guwahati Guest House and Office Complex at Joyanagar Road, Six Mile Guwahati for a period of two years. This Court while passing the interim order dated 12.02.2025 has taken into consideration Page No.# 8/8

all the preceding events prior to filing of WP(C) No.738/2025.

13. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the sole opposite party has filed WP(C) No.6142/2024 challenging the order dated 22.10.2024 by which the sole opposite party was allowed to complete the contractual obligations up to 30.04.2025, which is still pending for disposal and therefore, in the event the interim order dated 12.02.2025 is vacated and the applicants are permitted to finalize the NIT dated 01.02.2025, the very purpose of filing WP(C) No.6142/2024 would be defeated.

14. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to vacate the interim order dated 12.02.2025 at this stage.

15. Interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant