Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1455
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
AK Interior & Exterior Associates – Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P(C) No. 4550 of 2024
Decided on : 06-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. S Todi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr.N. Baruah, Standing Counsel, IOCL
The imposition of a Holiday Listing without a personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating reconsideration of procedural fairness in administrative actions with significant civil consequences.
Headnote:(A) Holiday Listing Guidelines - Unilateral Action - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner was placed under 'Holiday List' for alleged use of sub-standard materials leading to the collapse of a constructed canopy following severe weather. The petitioner denied the allegations, asserting proper execution and completion of the work. The court examined whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to, particularly the necessity for a personal hearing before imposing such significant civil consequences, concluding that the failure to provide a hearing rendered the decision arbitrary. (Paras 8, 10, 27, 28)
(B) Contractual Obligations - The court underscored that blacklisting or holiday listing involves significant ramifications that require grounds for action to be properly substantiated with proof and follow due process. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was contracted for construction work by a corporation. After completion, adverse weather caused structural damage prompting a notice citing poor materials used, leading to an investigation alleging deficiencies.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the complaint was rooted in the subjective conclusions of an internal committee without an independent evaluation, highlighting the violation of natural justice principles.
Issues: The central issue was the procedural fairness in the election to debar the contractor without a hearing, recognized as necessary due to the severe impact of such a decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that failure to afford the petitioner a chance for a personal hearing before being holiday listed contravened natural justice principles and that arbitrary actions must be reconsidered.
Result: The order placing the petitioner on the Holiday List was set aside and the matter remanded for a proper hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner was empanelled contractor with a history of satisfactory work. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner accused of using sub-standard materials after canopy collapse. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner denied allegations and insisted on quality of materials. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. allegations against petitioner lacked independent verification. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. petitioner argues for a fair hearing prior to holiday listing. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. respondents assert the proper process was followed. (Para 12 , 15) |
| 7. legal principles of natural justice relevant to administrative decisions. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. supreme court precedence underlines importance of hearings in civil consequence cases. (Para 18 , 19 , 23) |
| 9. court emphasizes need for personal hearing in administrative decisions affecting rights. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 10. court directs to set aside holiday listing and conduct a re-hearing. (Para 28 , 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 site was handed thereafter. It
