Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6425/2022 of MD. HAFIZUDDIN AHMED Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. on 14 June 2026
GAHC010197962022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6425/2022 MD. HAFIZUDDIN AHMED SON OF LATE DHAN AHMED, R/O- KATONIPAR MORAN, SIVSAGAR, P.S.- SIVSAGAR, DIST.- SIVSAGAR, PIN- 785640, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA
GAHC010197962022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6425/2022
MD. HAFIZUDDIN AHMED
SON OF LATE DHAN AHMED,
R/O- KATONIPAR MORAN,
SIVSAGAR, P.S.- SIVSAGAR,
DIST.- SIVSAGAR, PIN- 785640,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:EASTERN REGION OFFICE REGIONAL CONTRACT CELL
INDIAN OIL BHAWAN
2 GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH)
DHAKURIA
KOLKATA- 700068
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.
3:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
MARKETING DIVISION
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
4:HARDISH SINGH
HIJUGURI
P.O.- HIJUGURI
DISTRICT- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P SHARMAH, MR P SONOWAL
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., R SULTANA(R2,3),MR. A JAHID(R2,3),MR. S S
ROY (r-1),SC, I O C
Linked Case : WP(C)/6542/2022
M/S DEEP TRADERS TRANSPORT AND ANR.
A PROPRIETARY FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT A.T. ROAD
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
2: SANJIB KALITA
S/O LT. SAILEN KALITA
R/O TINSUKIA SRIPUR LACHIT NAGAR
P.S.-TINSUKIA
DIST-TINSUKIA
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
NEW DELHI-110001
2:EASTERN REGION OFFICE REGIONAL CONTRACT CELL
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN 2 GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH)
DHALURIA
KOLKATA-700068
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
3:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
MARKETING DIVISION
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
4:M/S HARDISH SINGH
HIJUGURI
P.O.-HIJUGURI
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786192
Advocate for : MR P SHARMAH
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
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 : 15.06.2026
Heard Mr. P. Sharmah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. A. Zahid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities in the IOCL, that is, the respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions, had assailed selection of the respondent no. 4 as the beneficiary of a contract for road transportation of bulk petroleum products.
3. By a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] bearing E-Tender no. RCC/ERO/37/2021-22/PT-215, the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOCL] invited e-tenders under two-Bid system from Tank Truck owners for award of contracts for road transportation of bulk petroleum products with effect from 01.04.2022 or at a date to be decided at the discretion of the respondent IOCL for a period of three years with option for extension upto further two years at the sole discretion of the respondent IOCL. In response to the NIT, the two petitioners participated in the tender process by submitting their respective bid. Pursuant to the bidding process, the respondent IOCL selected the respondent no. 4 as the beneficiary and a Letter of Acceptance was issued in his favour on 31.08.2022. As per NIT, the period of contract was for three years either with effect from 01.04.2022 or at a date decided as per the Letter of Acceptance, that is, 31.08.2022.
4. Mr. Zahid, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has submitted that the contract period of three years had already expired pursuant to the LoA dated 31.08.2022 and the subject-matter of the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
5. In view of the afore-stated position that the period of contract of three years had already expired, the writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous. JUDGE
Comparing Assistant