Gauhati High Court
M/S S.H. Enterprise vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd And 4 Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010177502025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./209/2025
M/S S.H. ENTERPRISE
A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OF MD. SAFIQULHUSSAIN, S/O LATE HUSSAIN
ALI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAZIDUR
RAHMAN, S/O LATE OHIDUR RAHMAN, R/O RAJ APARTMENT, BLOCK-B,
2ND FLOOR, GMCH ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP, ASSAM
781005
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BONGAIGAON REFINERY,
P.O. DHALIGAON, DIST. 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 (EMPLOYEES SERVICE)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BONGAIGAON REFINERY
P.O. DHALIGAON
DIST. CHIRANG
ASSAM 783385
Page No.# 2/6
5:THE CHIEF MANAGER (EMS)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BONGAIGAON REFINERY
P.O. DHALIGAON
DIST. CHIRANG
ASSAM 78338
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SHARMA, MS P PHUKAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, SC, I O C,FOR CAVEATOR,N
GAUTAM,MISS. R R KAKATI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
07.11.2025
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Phukan,
learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation from any of the
respondents although the names of the learned counsel for the respondents
appear in the cause-list.
2) In this order, the word "petitioner" would mean the review
petitioner and the word "respondents" would mean and include the present
respondents. This has been clarified to remove any confusion as several other
proceedings have been referred to in this order.
3) This review petition has been preferred in respect of order
dated 17.07.2025, passed by this Court in W.A. 152/2025.
4) In brief, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-
a. The petitioner was awarded with a contract dated 24.03.2023, for
providing catering and other services in Bongaigaon Refinery Guwahati
Page No.# 3/6
Guest House and Office Complex of the respondent no.1 for a period
from 01.05.2023 to 30.04.2025. Thereafter, Letter of Award (LoA for
short) dated 29.03.2023, was issued in favour of the petitioner.
b. Owing to some disputes, the respondent no. 1 had approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3804/2023, and notice was issued. However,
during the pendency of the writ petition, the contract was terminated
on 06.11.2023.
c. The said termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.
(C) 6596/2023. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a common
judgment and order dated 06.09.2024.
d. The parties to the writ petition did not prefer any appeal against the
said judgment and order dated 06.09.2024.
e. Pursuant to the said common judgment and order dated 06.09.2024,
the respondent no.1, by a communication dated 22.10.2024, directed
the petitioner, amongst others, to complete the contractual obligation
for the remaining period of the contract by completing the required
formality.
f. However, in the meantime, the canteen workers of the erstwhile
contractor had preferred a writ appeal, being W.A. No. 375/2024 -
Dilip Kumar Sarmah & 21 Ors. v. M/s. S.H. Enterprise & 5 Ors .
g. The respondent authorities had issued a fresh tender/ NIT dated
01.02.2025 and accordingly, the petitioner had again approached this
Court and by filing W.P.(C) 738/2025, inter alia, prayed for quashing of
the fresh tender.
h. The learned Single Judge, while issuing notice vide order dated
Page No.# 4/6
12.02.2025, as an interim measure, directed that the tender dated
01.02.2025 should not be finalized without the leave of the Court.
i. The respondents filed I.A.(C) 775/2025 in connection with W.P.(C)
738/2025, seeking modification/ alternation of the order dated
12.02.2025. In view of the common order dated 06.09.2024, passed in
W.P.(C) 3804/2023 and W.P.(C) 6596/2023, permitting the petitioner to
compete the contractual obligations for the balance period, and
moreover that the W.P.(C) No. 6142/2024, would be rendered
infructuous, expressed its disinclination to pass any interim order.
j. Accordingly, the respondents had filed W.A. 152/2025, to assail the
order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.(C)
775/2025, arising out of W.P.(C) 738/2025.
5) This Court, by an order dated 17.07.2024, passed in W.A.
152/2025, considered the fact that the petitioner had not taken over the
contract area i.e. Bongaigaon Refinery Guwahati Guest House and Office
Complex and moreover, the catering and other services were not provided to
the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner had not participated in the fresh
tender process.
6) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A.
152/2025, this review petition has been preferred.
7) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this
review has been filed on two counts. Firstly, that a typographical error has crept
in paragraph 23 of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, which
would require substitution of the word "appellants" with the word
"respondents". Secondly, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of ABL
Page No.# 5/6
International Ltd. & Anr. V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. &
Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 553, has held that the existence of alternative remedy does
not bar the invocation of writ jurisdiction where issues of public law and
constitutional obligations are involved. No other submissions have been made.
8) Considered the submissions and the materials available on the
record.
9) The word "appellants", appearing in the last line of paragraph
23 of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, is indeed a
typing/clerical error as the tender was assailed by the respondents in W.A.
152/2025. Therefore, the said typing error is corrected that thus, it is ordered
that the word "appellants" appearing in last line of the order dated 17.07.2025,
passed in W.A. 152/2025 stands deleted and substituted with the word
"respondents".
10) Against the observations made in paragraph 23 of the said order,
that the respondents in W.A. 152/2025 [i.e. the petitioner in this writ petition]
can main a suit for recovering damages, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has cited the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. (supra) . In the said case, the
repudiation of contract of insurance was assailed by way of a writ petition. In
the said context, as disputed questions were involved, the point arose whether
the parties can be relegated to a civil court. Such a question has not arisen in
the present case in hand and therefore, on facts, the present case is
distinguishable. We take note that in several recent cases, the Supreme Court of
India has also held that a tenderer or a contractor with a grievance can
approach the civil court and sue for damages. If one needs any authority on the
point, the case of Uflex Ltd. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 0 Supreme(SC) 571
[also reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165] . Paragraph 3 of the said order is quoted
Page No.# 6/6
below:-
3. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always
seek damages in a civil court and thus, "attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary
grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by
exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted."
11) This Court, while passing the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in
W.A. 152/2025, has placed reliance on the case of (i) Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, (ii) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v.
Montecarlo Limited, (2022) 6 SCC 401 and therefore, this is not a case of
misconception of law by the Court. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by
any part of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed in W.A. 152/2025, on the
ground that the decision of this Court is vitiated by passing an order contrary to
the ratio laid down in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. (supra) , in that
event, the Court is of the considered opinion that said order would be an
erroneous order, which cannot be reconsidered in exercise of review jurisdiction.
12) Therefore, this petition for review is not maintainable and the
same is dismissed without issuance of notice on the respondents.
JUDGE JUDGE
Parimita.
Comparing Assistant
