Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 26 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010262472025
2025:GAU-AS:16215
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6702/2025
M/S SWATI LOGISTICS AND 2 ORS
WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SURYAVILLAS, 1 FLOOR
FLAT NO-1A, RKC ROAD, NEAR HARYANA BHAWAN,BHARALUMUKH,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781009. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER - RAHUL
AGARWAL
2: SRI RAHUL AGARWAL
SON OF LATE RAMSWARUP AGARWAL
RESIDENT OF VILL- BIJOYNAGAR
P.O.- BIJOYNAGAR
P.S. POLASHBARI
KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781122
3: DISHA AGARWAL
DAUGHTER OF SRI MANOHAR KUMAR AGARWAL
RESIDENT OF VILL- BIJOYNAGAR
P.O.- BIJOYNAGAR
P.S. POLASHBARI
KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 78112
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER THE INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL)
Page No.# 2/9
INDIAN OIL ADO STATE OFFICE
SECTOR-III NOONMATI
GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER L.P.G. (OPERATIONS)
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL)
INDIAN OIL ADO STATE OFFICE
SECTOR-III NOONMATI
GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM
4:THE MANAGER L.P.G. (OS)
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL)
INDIAN OIL ADO STATE OFFICE
SECTOR-III NOONMATI
GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM
5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER L.P.G. (FINANCE)
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL)
INDIAN OIL ADO STATE OFFICE
SECTOR-III
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI- 781020
ASSAM
6:THE DEPUTY MANAGER L.P.G. (SALES)
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL)
INDIAN OIL ADO STATE OFFICE
SECTOR-III
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI- 781020
ASSA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, Advocate
For the respondent (s) : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. H. Gupta, Advocate
Date on which judgment is reserved : NA
Page No.# 3/9
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.11.2025
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6.
2. Taking into account the issue involved and the instructions so placed by Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court takes up the instant writ petition for disposal at the motion stage.
3. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners in pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.03.2025 for transportation of bulk LPG by road from IOAODSO Assam-based locations had participated in the said tender process. The tender was opened on 13.05.2025 and a total of 814 bidders Page No.# 4/9 participated by submitting their offers. Out of the 814 bidders, 113 offers were rejected due to various discrepancies such as non-submission of mandatory documents, failure to meet eligibility criteria or deviation from tender conditions. The remaining 701 bidders including the petitioners were found technically acceptable and were short listed for opening of the price bid as per the final technical evaluation.
4. The records further reveal that the petitioners herein were asked to submit various documents on 14.06.2025 which included the requirement of submission of the copy of the Registration Certificate from the Registrar of Firms to establish the registered partnership firm and enclosing all the annexures wherein names of all partners of the said partnership firm are to be mentioned.
5. The petitioners, thereupon on 15.06.2025, submitted various documents including a partnership deed which was registered before the Deputy Registrar, Kamrup (Metro). Notable to mention that the Certificate of Registration of the partnership firm issued by the Registrar of Firms was not submitted as directed vide the communication dated 14.06.2025.
6. The records further reveal that on 16.09.2025, a Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioners and further Page No.# 5/9 there was an advice to submit the documents, declarations, deposits as per the tender completed in all respects to the office.
7. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ proceedings are that the petitioners thereupon submitted those documents along with a Registration Certificate dated 27.10.2025 issued by the Registrar of Firms on 12.11.2025. Inspite of that, neither any work order has been issued nor an agreement has been entered into. The petitioners also apprehend that the respondents may cancel the Letter of Acceptance and as such the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to issue the work order as well as enter into the agreement and further also seeking a direction that the petitioners bids should not be cancelled.
8. It is relevant at this stage to take note of that on 12.11.2025, the petitioners had submitted a representation to the Chief General Manager of the Respondent Corporation requesting for the issuance of the work order as well as entering into the contract agreement. It is alleged that the said representation had not been considered.
9. When the matter was taken up by this Court prior to lunch recess, the Court sought for instructions why the petitioners' Page No.# 6/9 representation dated 12.11.2025 had not been considered and further why the work order had not been issued and agreement not entered into. It was submitted that the instructions would be produced post recess.
10. Post recess, Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel produced the instructions issued by the Law Officer of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 dated 26.11.2025. The said instructions are kept on record and marked with the letter "X". A copy of the instructions were also provided to Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
11. From a perusal of the said instructions, it appears that the petitioners though submitted its bid as a partnership firm, but the petitioners did not submit the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms. It was also mentioned that though the petitioners were held to be technically responsive initially, but later on, it was seen that the petitioners did not submit the Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms, and as such, a query was made with the petitioners to produce the said certificate. It was further mentioned that the petitioners, instead of producing such certificate, had produced a partnership deed registered before the Deputy Registrar, Kamrup (Metro) and not the Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms. It was only on 12.11.2025, the petitioners had submitted the Page No.# 7/9 certificate from the Registrars of Firms issued on 27.10.2025. It is the further stand of the respondents as could be seen from the instructions that this certificate dated 27.10.2025 cannot be taken into consideration taking into account that it would violate the mandatory requirement of documents defined under the technical bid of the subject tender.
12. In the above factual backdrop, let this Court note down the submissions on behalf of the respective parties.
Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have invested huge sums of money pursuant to submission of the Bid and the issuance of the Letter of Acceptance. The Respondent Authorities cannot arbitrarily and unreasonably delay the issuance of the work order or enter into the agreement. If reasons exist to deny the work order or enter into the agreement, the Respondent Authorities ought to have been prompt to inform the petitioners. However, the same have not been done inspite of almost two months expiring after the issuance of the Letter of Acceptance which necessitated the petitioners to submit a representation, in respect to which also the respondents are silent.
Per contra Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Letter of Acceptance was conditional and Page No.# 8/9 without fulfilling the conditions, there is no legitimate expectation for the petitioners to expect that the work order would be issued and the Agreement would be entered into. He submitted that a conditional Letter of Acceptance creates no vested rights until it passes the threshold of final and unconditional acceptance. Referring to the Letter of Acceptance, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners were asked to carry out various formalities including submission of documents/declarations/deposits etc. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the representation was submitted on 12.11.2025 and on 25.11.2025, the writ petition was filed.
13. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. Without entering into the reasons mentioned in the instructions kept on record and marked with the letter "X", it is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent Authorities have a duty to inform the petitioners if they are going to issue the work order and enter into the agreement or would reject the Bid of the petitioners as well as cancel the Letter of Acceptance. Delay in providing information to the bidders to whom a Letter of Acceptance had been issued touches on the fairness and transparency in the conduct of the Tendering Authority. This Court for the sake of clarity observes that this Court had intentionally avoided to opine on the merits Page No.# 9/9 of the stand taken in the instructions marked with the letter "X" as it is the opinion of this Court that any discussion or decision shall prejudice the parties to the present proceedings that too when the respondent Nos.2 to 6 is yet to decide on the representation submitted by the petitioners on 12.11.2025.
14. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the Respondent Authorities and more particularly the Chief General Manager of the respondent No.2 to whom the representation dated 12.11.2025 had been submitted to dispose of the said representation within a period of 15 days from the date of the present judgment.
15. It is observed that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision of the Respondent Authorities, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court, if there exists no alternative or efficacious remedy.
JUDGE Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2025.12.03 12:54:04 +05'30' Comparing Assistant