Summary
The Court set aside the direction requiring ONGC to finalise a gas-allocation contract with the writ applicant after allowing it to improve its offer during litigation. The rival applicants had neither been joined nor heard or offered the same opportunity. The High Court also supplied no reasons on the merits. The writ petition was restored for a fresh decision after impleadment and a full hearing, with the allocation merits expressly left open.
Issues
- Whether a contract-finalisation direction could stand after one applicant improved its offer without hearing rival applicants.
- Whether the High Court’s unreasoned disposal required a fresh hearing.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe exercise of writ jurisdiction to permit an improved offer and direct contract finalisation without equal opportunity to rival applicants or reasons on merits was unsustainable. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
Held
- The competing applicants were known but were not parties to the writ petition. If the writ applicant was permitted to reduce its proposed readiness period, the rivals had to be heard and given an opportunity to object or improve their offers. The procedure adopted denied them that opportunity. (¶¶ 2, 4)
- The Court expressed doubt about permitting such an offer revision in writ jurisdiction, but did not finally decide the allocation dispute. Independently, the High Court’s order lacked any merits discussion beyond reciting prayers and earlier orders. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
- The writ petition required restoration, impleadment of the rival applicants and a fresh decision after full opportunity to ONGC, the Union and the appellants. The Court requested disposal preferably within four weeks of receipt of its order, leaving merits open. (¶ 6)
Result
Both appeals allowed; High Court order quashed and writ petition restored for a fresh hearing after impleadment. Expedited disposal requested, preferably within four weeks of receipt; no order as to costs.