Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010126332026 2026:GAU-AS:9112-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/207/2026 MS THRUWELL TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 99/4, VILLAGE- MALJIPADA, TALUKA- VASAI, DISTRICT- PALGHAR, MAHARASHTRA- 401202 THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SHRAMIK LINGAYAT -VERSUS - OIL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR A GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT DULIAJAN, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2:THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY A- WING SHASTRI BHAWAN DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI- 11000 Page No.# 2/7 For the appellant : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. N. Gautam, Advocate Mr. F. Khan, Advocate (Through video conferencing) For the respondents : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Sr. Advocate (Through video conferencing) Mr. A. Sarma, S.C., O.I.L. Mr. N. Singh Bagga, Advocate Mr. K. Kalita, Advocate Mr. S. Sharma, Mr. A. Hussain & Mr. K. Mathur, Advocates (Through video conferencing) – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 23-06-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents/Oil India Limited. 2. The appellant, an Indian MSME company, is engaged in manufacturing and supplying oilfield tools and equipments, particularly Control Line products for the oil and gas sector. Page No.# 3/7 3. In the year 2023, Oil India Limited (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OIL’) issued a development order/purchase order to the appellant for development and supply of those products. 4. The appellant completed the order under OIL supervision. Thereafter, a virtual inspection was made by the OIL. The products were supplied, inspected, tested and accepted by OIL. Consequently, it has been argued, OIL issued Development Order Certificates on 12.12.2023 on successful completion of the requirement and an amended certificate on 13.08.2024. The warranty of the products also expired without complaints and full payment was released to the appellant. The certificate granted by the OIL was a valuable commercial credential for the appellant in future tenders. 5. In the year 2025, the appellant had bagged an ONGC tender, in which, presumably the certificate issued by the OIL was used. A rival/unsuccessful bidder, namely, M/s Classic Oilfields Supplies and Services Pvt. Ltd. raised complaints and challenged the award of contract to the appellant before various forums, including the Delhi High Court. 6. This triggered the OIL to conduct fresh inspection. 7. The grievance of the appellant is that this inspection was carried out without disclosing the purpose of the same, or the nature of the allegation received against the appellant. 8. It was in this context, the records reveal that on 15.01.2026, OIL issued a communication placing the Development Order Certificates in Page No.# 4/7 abeyance, citing complaints and pending Delhi High Court proceeding, but without any show-cause notice, or disclosure of materials, or an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 9. The appellant preferred a writ petition before the Bombay High Court against the communication dated 15.01.2026, referred to above, which writ petition was disposed off by the Bombay High Court without interfering with the impugned communication, but giving the liberty to the appellant to make a suitable representation before the authorities, with supporting documents, and if it were found that the appellant was successful, to use the expression of the Bombay High Court, in steering clear of the allegations against the appellant of getting an India made certificate even after supplying products not manufactured in India, the certificates would be restored. 10. It further appears that pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted a detailed representation on 10.02.2026. OIL passed a final speaking order on 04.03.2026 withdrawing the certificates, but on this occasion also, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant or disclosure of any adverse materials against it. 11. This decision of the OIL dated 04.03.2026, referred to above, was challenged by the appellant before this Court vide WP(C) 1849/2026. In the afore-noted writ petition, the challenge was also to the communication dated 15.01.2026, namely, the abeyance of the utility of the certificates issued by OIL. 12. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2026 though set aside the speaking order of withdrawal of the Page No.# 5/7 certificates on grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice and directed a fresh show-cause process with hearing, but declined to interfere with the communication of abeyance dated 15.01.2026, primarily on the ground that such communication, which was challenged before the Bombay High Court, was never interfered with and the writ petition preferred by the appellant was disposed off with the liberty to the appellant to rebut the allegations levelled against it of supplying products which were not manufactured in India. 13. Aggrieved by this partial relief, the present appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the abeyance communication and, till a final decision is taken by OIL, restoration of the certificates. 14. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has argued that those certificates created certain rights in favour of the appellant, on the basis of which, he could get contracts from various entities. Such a right had accrued on the basis of the certificate, which has been taken away by the OIL without issuance of a show-cause notice. 15. It was pointed out on behalf of the OIL by Mr. Mehta, leaned Senior Advocate that there was an oversight with respect to supply of certain materials by the appellant which were not made in India. Products manufactured in Sweden and Canada were shown to have been manufactured in India. The respondent/OIL has alleged that it was a fraud. We do not express any opinion on this for the reason that the issue is to be finally decided by the OIL after the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Page No.# 6/7 16. Another argument which was raised on behalf of the appellant was that the logic employed by the learned Single Judge in not interfering with the communication dated 15.01.2026, namely, the same not having been interfered with by the Bombay High Court, is fallacious. Setting aside a final withdrawal order, even on technical grounds, would remain illusory if the abeyance order, in the meanwhile, is made to remain operative, which communication also was made without any disclosure to the appellant, or an opportunity to it to question such abeyance. 17. The logical inference, from this Mr. K.N. Choudhury has argued, is that even for a brief while, a substantive adverse action has been taken against the appellant without letting him know the accusation against it. The principles of natural justice have to be followed even for making a communication to that extent. 18. An additional argument has been made on behalf of the appellant that abeyance order and the final withdrawal order form part of the same chain and therefore, it could not have been severed when an order setting aside the order of withdrawal was passed by the learned Single Judge in this instance. 19. This argument lacks substance for the reason of the Bombay High Court having been moved by the appellant with a specific prayer for setting aside such abeyance order and which prayer was not allowed and the writ petition having been disposed off with a liberty to the appellant to rebut the charges levelled against it and only on such successful effort of the appellant, if at all it happened, the certificates would be restored. Page No.# 7/7 20. Seen in this context, the judgment of the learned Single Judge and a conscious decision having been taken by him for not interfering with the abeyance order cannot be faulted with. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had also taken note of the submissions made on behalf of the OIL that in case of co-operation by the appellant, the proceeding shall be concluded expeditiously. 21. Thus, finding no fault with the judgment impugned in not interfering with the abeyance communication dated 15.01.2026, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to cost. 22. At this stage, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has urged this Court to direct that the OIL should give some time to the appellant to respond to the allegations. 23. This Court hopes and trusts that the OIL, before passing any order, shall afford all opportunities to the appellant, including a personal hearing, to explain its cause. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant