Gauhati High Court
Review.Pet./82/2026 of SRI RAJIB HAZARIKA Vs OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (ONGC) 4 ORS. on 15 July 2026
GAHC010247522025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./82/2026 SRI RAJIB HAZARIKA S/O LATE PROBIN HAZARIKA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B.P. CHALIHA ROAD MELACHAKAR DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640 VERSUS OIL AND
GAHC010247522025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./82/2026
SRI RAJIB HAZARIKA
S/O LATE PROBIN HAZARIKA
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B.P. CHALIHA ROAD
MELACHAKAR
DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785640
VERSUS
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (ONGC) 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT -5A- 5B
NELSON MANDELA ROAD
VASANT KUNJ
NEW DELHI
110070
2:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (MM)
CENTRAL LOGISTIC AND PRODUCTION SERVICES PROCUREMENT GROUP
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
ONGC
7TH FLOOR
NBP GREEN HEIGHTS
K
BANDRA E
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA 400051
3:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (MM)
CENTRAL LOGISTICS AND PRODUCTION SERVICES GROUP
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
ONGC
15TH FLOOR
MAKER TOWER E
CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR
CUFFE PARADE
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA-400005
4:SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
CENTRAL LOGISTICS AND PRODUCTION SERVICES PROCUREMENT
GROUP CLPG
CENTRA PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT CPD
ONGC
15TH FLOOR
MAKER TOWER E
CUFFE PARADE
MUMBAI-400005
5:NIRMAL KUMAR SHARMA
12
APSARA READYMADE
J.P. AGARWALA PATH
NEAR LACHIT PARK
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM -785640.
------------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Sarmah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. I. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. P. Baruah, Advocate Mr. L.N. Dihingia, Advocate BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 16.07.2026
Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. L.N. Dihingia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
2. This is a review application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 solely on the ground that subsequent to the judgment passed by this Court on 26.09.2025, the petitioner discovered new and important evidence which even with due diligence could not have been discovered by the petitioner either at the time of filing of the writ petition or when the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 was passed.
3. The new and important evidence are the documents enclosed as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly) to the review application.
4. Annexure-3 is the Purchase Agreement and Annexure-4 (colly) is the agreement entered into by and between the respondent No. 5 and M/s Quickedge Integrated LLP, the manufacturer and supplier of scrapping winches.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that these two documents would show that the documents relied upon by the respondent No. 5 were incomplete in nature and, therefore, ought not to have been taken into consideration by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 while evaluating the technical bid of the respondent No. 5.
6. Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 fairly submitted that the respondents do not question the petitioner's lack of knowledge of these documents. However, questions the petitioner's due diligence on the ground that the petitioner could have sought these documents by filing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a perusal of paragraph 9 of the review application would show that the petitioner has not disclosed the source of the two documents enclosed as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly) to the review application.
7. Per contra, Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even as on today the said documents are not available for viewing on the portal. The petitioner somehow managed to get the documents only recently and immediately thereafter filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 6369/2025. The learned counsel further submitted that the said writ petition had a technical defect in view of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 for which the present review application was filed.
8. Taking into account the above and without commenting on the impact of Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly) in respect to the evaluation of the technical bid of the respondent No. 5, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of discovery of new and important evidence touching upon the technical evaluation of the respondent No. 5 which was not available to the petitioner either at the time of filing of WP(C) No. 5768/2025 or when the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 was passed.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025 is required to be recalled, but only to the extent of considering the new and important evidence, i.e. Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 (colly). However, in respect to the other aspects which have been already dealt with in the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5768/2025, the findings therein had attained finality.
10. The review petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforementioned observations.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant