SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1215

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
AK Interior & Exterior Associates, represented by its sole proprietor, Mr. Abdul Motin - Petitioner 
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors. – Respondents
W.P(C) No. 4550 of 2024 
Decided On : 06-08-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. S Todi, Advocate Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Baruah, Standing Counsel, IOCL

Imposing a 'Holiday Listing' without a personal hearing violates natural justice principles, affecting a party's ability to contract and thus constituting a civil consequence.

Headnote:(A) Writ of Mandamus - Contract Law - The 'Holiday Listing' guidelines of IOCL stipulate grounds for placing a contractor on the holiday list. The court interpreted that imposing such a restriction without a personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice. (Paras 14, 25, 27)

(B) Natural Justice - The principle of 'audi alteram partem' dictates that an affected party must have the opportunity to present their case before a prejudicial decision is made. It applies even in administrative decisions with civil consequences. (Paras 19, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an empanelled contractor, was accused of sub-standard work on a canopy that collapsed during a storm, leading to a show-cause notice for holiday listing. The petitioner completed work satisfactorily and had received payment before the notice. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the failure to afford a personal hearing prior to placing the petitioner on the Holiday List constituted a violation of natural justice. (Paras 27-30)

Issues: Whether the requirement for a personal hearing is mandatory before placing a party on the holiday list.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actions that carry civil consequences, like 'Holiday Listing' which effectively amounts to blacklisting. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: Writ petition allowed and the holiday listing order set aside, remanding the matter back for a fresh hearing.

Table of Content
1. background of the petitioner's empanelment and contracts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details regarding the show-cause notice and reasons for work collapse. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner's defense against allegations of sub-standard materials. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. alleged violation of natural justice in holiday listing process. (Para 9 , 10)
5. respondent's defense regarding holiday listing procedure. (Para 11 , 12)
6. court’s observation on the holiday list's effects and legal grounds. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. legal principles from cited judgments regarding blacklisting. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. judicial review standards and principles of natural justice. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. importance of personal hearing in administrative decisions. (Para 26 , 27)
10. court's conclusions on the enforcement of natural justice principles. (Para 28)
11. verdict to remand for personal hearing and order set aside. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

(SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was an empanelled Contractor with the respondent Corporation under the Silchar D.O. The writ petitioner is a proprietorship concern having its office at South Sarania, Asshram Road, Ulubari, Guwahati. The petitioner is a registered vendor and is an enlisted contractor with the respondent Corporation bearing vendor code 13250005. The petitioner in the past had successfully executed several contracts with the respondent Corporation and on each occasion, the petitioner had duly executed the work to the satisfaction of all concerned. The petitioner states that in the year 2021, the Manager (Contract), ERO, IOCL (MD), Indian Oil Bhawan, Gariahat, Kolkata namely respondent No. 4 had issued an NIT for “Rate Contract (for value of works up to Rs. 30 Lakh) for carrying out capital and revenue works at Retail Outlets (including KSKs), consumer outlets, Depots, Terminals, Lube and LPG plants, Aviation Fuelling Stations, Buildings etc. under Indian Oil-AOD State Office” bearing e-tender No. RCC/ERO/37/2020-21/PT-108. The said NIT was issued for empanelment of contractors of Guwahati DO, Tinsukia DO, Silchar Do and Imphal DO. The petitioner concerned being eligible participated in the e-tender process and submitted requisite documents as per Bid Documents and also submitted rates in respect of the tender. The bid of the petitioner concern and the rates quoted by the petitioner concern was selected and the petitioner concern was empanelled for Silchar DO amongst others for a period of two years by issuing a letter of intent being LOI No. RCC/ERO/39/2020-21/792 dated 12.03.2021.

2. It is submitted that after being empanelled, the respondent authorities issued work orders to the empanelled contractors regarding various civil and constructions works within the respective ROs. The present proceedings relate to the issuance of work order in respect of “fabrication and errection of canopy of size 16x8 Sq Mtr and constructions paver block and Jai Hanuman Filling Station” for an amount of Rs.18,35,934.96/-. The petitioner was issued work order vide work order No. 28177360 dated 22.09.2022. In the said work order, the schedule of rates and the work specification was clearly mentioned. It is submitted that the petitioner completed the concerned works and handed over site to the respondent authorities by giving complete possession on 20.01.2023. The completion certificate cum final bill raised have been finally received pertaining to the said work upon being issued the completion certificate by the respondent authorities.

3. It is submitted that in the month of April 2024, the petitioner was contacted by the respondent authorities and was informed that the canopy which was constructed by the petitioner had collapsed due to bad weather and as such the petitioner concerned was required to give in writing as to whether the work was properly executed or not. The petitioner thereafter intimated the respondent authorities that the work was properly executed and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top