Shri Anupam Saikia vs The Oil India Limited And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7461 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Shri Anupam Saikia vs The Oil India Limited And Ors on 18 September, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010120612025




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3139/2025

         SHRI ANUPAM SAIKIA
         S/O- SHRI DHARMESWAR SAIKIA.
         R/O- SOUTH BANK.
         P.O.- TIPLING BAHDHARI.
         DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786610



         VERSUS

         THE OIL INDIA LIMITED AND ORS
         REPRSENTED BY THE ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HOD), P.O.-
         DULIAJAN, DIST.-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786602.

         2:MANAGER
          CONTRACT
          OIL INDIA LTD.
          DULIAJAN
          P.O.- DULIAJAN
          DIST.- DIBRUGARH
         ASSAM
          PIN-786602.

         3:SHRI PRADIP HAZARIKA
          S/O- BAPU RAM HAZARIKA.
         R/O- USHAPUR
          BARBAM GAON
          P.O.- JEYPORE
          DIST.- DIBRUGARH
         ASSAM.
         PIN- 786614
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4


Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. BK Das


Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. I Choudhury, Senior Advocate
                                 Mr. B Sharma
                                  BEFORE
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


                                    ORDER

18.09.2025

Heard Mr. BK Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. I Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B Sharma, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the unfair and discriminatory treatment being meted out to him.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that on account of certain difficulties beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not submit certain financial documents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on that ground, if the petitioner's bid would have been rejected, the petitioner would not have any quarrel. However, the grievance of the petitioner herein is that on one hand, the respondent authorities have chosen not to accept those financial documents of the petitioner at a later stage wherein there is no bar to accept, but on the other hand, had allowed the respondent No.3 to submit certain documents which on the face of it was barred in terms with Clause 5.14 of the tender document.

4. Today, during the course of the hearing, Mr. I Choudhury, the learned Page No.# 3/4

Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had submitted that certain documents can be accepted, but certain documents cannot be accepted basing upon an Office Order issued by the Executive Director of the respondent No.1 dated 16.02.2018. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that as the financial documents cannot be accepted, the petitioner cannot be given a further opportunity to submit the financial documents, whereas the other documents can be accepted.

5. This Court enquired with the learned Senior Counsel as to whether the Office Order which was only for internal use purpose as is mentioned in the Officer Order itself, was ever brought to the notice of the tenderers or whether the tender terms referred to the Office Order in question. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 with all his fairness submitted that the Office Order has not been made a part of the tender conditions. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that like the respondent No.3, 22 others have also not complied with the tender conditions, but opportunity was granted. It therefore, prima facie, appears that if a hidden criteria have been adopted to deprive the petitioner of equal treatment.

6. A further submission has also been made by the respondents that the instant writ petition was not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not an eligible bidder. The said submission is made on the basis of the judgment in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. IVR Construction Ltd. & Ors, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 492 and referred to paragraph 27.

7. The proposition as set out in the said judgment is very clear that an ineligible bidder cannot question the tender process. However, the said ratio would not apply in a situation when ineligible bidder questions the decision of Page No.# 4/4

the authority when preferential treatment is given to another ineligible bidder standing on the same or as in the instant case an inferior footing.

8. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties is prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner herein, who is similarly situated with the other bidders had not been equally treated, inasmuch as, 22 other bidders have been given the preferential treatment for furnishing documents pursuant to the last date for submission of the bid, whereas the petitioner was deprived.

9. Mr. I Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submits that he would like to obtain instruction(s) as to whether in the present case the petitioner can be given a further opportunity by taking his financial documents subject to the petitioner being eligible in respect to all other parameters of the tender document.

10. Taking into account the above, list the matter again tomorrow i.e. 19.09.2025 at 10.30 A.M.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant