Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Manish Choudhury, J.
Sri. Saurav Jyoti Baruah, S/o Late Kuled Baruah - Petitioner
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., New Delhi and ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 5404 of 2020
Decided On : 07-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 12, 14 and 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 448/323/506/353 – Equality before Law – Protection of life and personal liberty – Power of High court to issue writs - whether contractual relations between parties bear insignia of public element - whether action of State and/or instrumentality or agency of State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into decision making process or that decision is not arbitrary - whether there has been acceptance of final report by Court as on date - whether Contract Agreement is to be terminated or not - whether first respondent, an instrumentality of State, was discharging a public duty or a public function while repudiating claim of appellants arising out of a contract - whether a money claim can be granted in writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India - whether contractual relations between parties bear insignia of public element - whether action of State and/or instrumentality or agency of State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into decision making process or that decision is not arbitrary –
Finding of the Court:
Court has already come to a conclusion, that Contract Agreement is not statutory contract and does not contain any public element involving any obligation on part of respondent Corporation to discharge any public duty - By a notice, petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why Contract Agreement shall not be terminated for violation of clause 12.0 r/w clause 18.4 of Contract Agreement - Reference has been made in said notice about incident wherein Senior Transport Officer of respondent Corporation was allegedly assaulted in his office during course of discharge of his duties by petitioner and also about lodgment of FIR by management of respondent Corporation - Terming incident to be an act of indiscipline and impropriety on part of petitioner, petitioner was asked to submit his reply - In his reply, petitioner had alleged demand of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as bribe by Senior Transport Officer - Respondent Corporation has brought on record a letter of petitioner which is stated to have been submitted to respondent - Petitioner had informed that no demand for bribe was made by Senior Transport Officer of respondent Corporation to him and it was result of miscommunication and subsequent misunderstanding caused by his employee - Petitioner by tendering his formal apology for trouble caused by him to Senior Transport Officer and respondent Corporation, stated that he had withdrawn his complaint - In his affidavit-in-reply, petitioner had, however, averred that he was compelled to withdraw his complaint as he was under belief that if complaint was withdrawn by him, FIR lodged against him and letter would also be withdrawn - Petitioner has further asserted that show cause notice was issued with sole motive to exert pressure upon him so as to compel him to withdraw his complaint - Petitioner is seen to have taken different stances at different points of time and taking of such vacillating stances, incompatible to each other, has not convinced Court to hold a view that petitioner is entitled to any equitable relief
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
The writ petition invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking setting aside of a letter dated 26.05.2020 and a letter dated 27.05.2020 issued by the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 4 respectively, who are officials of the respondent no. 1 i.e. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. [‘the ONGC’ and/or ‘the Corporation’, for short]. By the letter dated 26.05.2020, the respondent ONGC authorities had withdrawn all the jobs awarded to the petitioner under a Contract Agreement dated 13.03.2020 with immediate effect and till further orders. By the letter dated 27.05.2020, the petitioner was intimated that the two water tankers belonging to him, would be withdrawn w.e.f. 28.05.2020 in consequence of the letter dated 26.05.2020.
2. In order to appreciate the issues raised in this writ petition, a brief narration of the events leading to the issuance of the afore-stated two impugned letters appears necessary.
2.1. The petitioner carries on business in the name of his sole proprietorship concern, M/s Saurav Jyoti Baruah. The petitioner stated to have executed a number of contract works under the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation in order to hire 9 KL water tanker services for carrying out its operation, floated an e-Tender and the petitioner participated in the said competitive bidding process. After evaluation of the techno-commercial bids and the price bids, the petitioner was informed vide a Notification of Award [NoA] dated 28.11.2019 that he was selected for hiring of 2 [two] nos. of 9 KL water tanker services for a period of 3 [three] years. It was further intimated that the contract would be valid for a period of 3 [three] years from the date of deployment of water tankers on duty after satisfactory inspection and the mobilization period was 40 [forty] days from the date of issuance of the NoA.
2.2. Accordingly, the petitioner placed 2 [two] nos. of water tankers before the respondent Corporation on 23.12.2019 for deployment. After inspection, the respondent authorities had accepted the two water tankers for deployment. The two water tankers had thereafter, been deployed by the respondent authorities w.e.f. 26.12.2019. A Contract Agreement dated 13.03.2020 was executed between the respondent Corporation and the petitioner incorporating the terms and conditions of the contract.
2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was earlier awarded a contract of hiring of 1 [one] drinking water tanker for a period of 3 [three] years w.e.f. 28.12.2016 vide NoA dated 13.10.2016 pursuant to a bidding process floated in the year 2016. A Contract Agreement was also executed between the parties in respect of the said contract work awarded vide NoA dated 13.10.2016. According to the petitioner, he submitted a bill dated 06.03.2020 in terms of the fair wage policy contained in the said Contract Agreement. The said bill was kept pending at the table of one particular official of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner and his representatives made regular visits to the said official for requesting him to process the bill expeditiously. It has been projected by the petitioner that the said official had delayed the processing of the bill under one pretext or another and when the petitioner visited the said official on 18.03.2020, the said official demanded some amount as gratification for passing the bill. With regard to the said issue, an altercation took place between the petitioner and the said official of the respondent Corporation.
2.4. With regard to the said incident of altercation, the petitioner stated to have informed the Contractors’ Association of which he is a member, immediately on 18.03.2020 and the said Association lodged a complaint before the respondent no. 3 against the particular official of the respondent Corporation. On the other hand, the said official also informed his higher authorities on 18.03.2020 about
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
