DWIJEN CHUTIA Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the instant writ application is against a tender notice dated 18.12.2001 issued by die authorities of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the O.N.G.C.) certain items of work for which tenders were invited by notice dated 23.7.2001 and 4.9.2001 in which process the writ petitioner had participated after being withdrawn by the authority were re -tendered by the impugned tender notice in question.

(2.) The brief facts of the case may be noted as hereunder:

(3.) Mr. N.C. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that for the four items of works in respect of which the writ petitioner had submitted tender pursuant to the earlier notice, the price offered by him was found to be the lowest and, therefore, die petitioner entertained a legitimate gspectadon of being settled with the contract. However, for reasons not disclosed and known, the authority withdrew the work for which tenders were invited and in response to which the petitioner submitted his tender and fresh -tenders for the said works were re -invited by notice dated 18.12.2001. Mr. Phukan has also submitted that in. respect of the civil works relating to the Drill site KHAF as many as four tenders were received and m respect of the works relating to the construction of the approach, road to the Drill site KHAF as many as 70 lenders were received. According to the learned, counsel, the actions of the authority in not proceeding with the tenders received and instead resorting to the impugned tender notice re -inviting bids for the same works has been taken for reasons collateral and not bonafide and the same have the effect of transgressing the rights of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned tender notice dated 18.12.2001 is liable to appropriate interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226. Mr. Phukan, in order to bring home the point that the impugned actions are liable to interference in exercise of writ powers has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court namely Centre for Public interest Litigation and Anr. v/s. Union of India and Ors., reported in and Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. v/s. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. and Ors., reported in