Dismissed¶14

Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Bombay HC5 Feb 2025WP/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judicial review of tender terms — Article 226 — BPCL NIT dated 25 October 2023 for road transportation of bulk special petroleum products (MTO/Hexane/SBP) by bottom-loading tank lorries from Mumbai Refinery pursuant to MPCB directive — challenge to altered stringent conditions and Letter of Intent dated 24 April 2024 — no vested right from 45-year past participation — author of tender best judge of its requirements — stringency alone no ground to interfere — writ dismissed, no costs. Keywords: tender terms alteration; arbitrariness; vested right of existing contractor; bottom loading tank lorry; MPCB directive; bank guarantee Rs.20,00,000; RTKM rate; toll reimbursement; product insurance.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the Petitioner; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶14

Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners vs Bharat Petroleum… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the Petitioner; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the alteration of terms and conditions in the new tender vis-à-vis the earlier tender(s), allegedly made unilaterally and arbitrarily, renders the tender notice dated 25 October 2023 and the Letter of Intent dated 24 April 2024 liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the terms and conditions incorporated by BPCL in the NIT.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the terms of the NIT are stringent is no ground to interfere in the tender process where the decision was taken considering market dynamics, business exigencies and other industrial requirements.

¶13

Key takeaways

BPCL, being the author of the tender, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements.ratio¶13
Participation in and execution of the contract for the past 45 years confers no vested right on the Petitioner's members to insist that the terms of the NIT be made to suit their convenience; nor are they prohibited from participating in the bidding process.ratio¶13
BPCL took the bidders' views into account, extended deadlines, and against a requirement of 125 tank lorries received bids offering many more; the Letter of Intent was issued after scrutiny; consequently the writ petition lacked merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 by Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners Association challenging BPCL's tender notice dated 25 October 2023 for road transportation of bulk special petroleum products (MTO/Hexane/SBP) by bottom-loading tank lorries from BPCL Mumbai Refinery — a requirement introduced in compliance with Maharashtra Pollution Control Board directives — and the Letter of Intent dated 24 April 2024 issued to Respondent Nos. 10 to 36. The Petitioner alleged unilateral, stringent alterations vis-à-vis the earlier 2016 tender under which its members had served for 45 years, and claimed a consequent vested right and breach of natural justice. Held, dismissing the petition with no order as to costs: (i) no illegality or arbitrariness in the NIT terms; (ii) stringency of tender terms alone is no ground for interference where the decision reflects market dynamics, business exigencies and industrial requirements; (iii) the author of the tender is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; (iv) 45 years of past participation and contract execution confers no vested right to demand that tender terms suit the existing transporters' convenience; and (v) BPCL had addressed bidders' grievances through corrigenda, extended deadlines twice, and received bids far exceeding the requirement of 125 tank lorries.

¶1

2025:BHC-OS:5968-DB

¶2

WP.70-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 70 OF 2024

¶5

Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners Association, 38, Sewri Co-op. Industrial Estate, Sewri-Bunder Rd. Sewri, Mumbi – 400 015. … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bharat Petroleum Corporation

¶8

Limited, Bharat Bhavan,

¶9

Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

¶10

2. Director-Marketing, Bharat Petroleum Corporation

¶11

Limited, Bharat Bhavan, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

¶12

3. ED. I and C,

¶13

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. E Wing, 9th floor, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.

¶14

4. Senior Manager, I and C, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. E Wing, 9th floor, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.

¶15

5. Procurement Leader, (CPO Marketing-Group 10)

¶16

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. CPO-M, Sewri Fort Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400 074.

¶17

6. Procurement Manager, (CPO Marketing-Group 10)

¶18

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

PMB

WP.70-2024

CPO-M, Sewri Fort Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400 074.

¶23

7. Transport Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Sector 2, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410 210.

¶24

8. I and C-Cordinator, Bharat Petroleum Refinery, Mahul, Chembur, Mumbai-400 074.

¶25

9. GM I and C, Logistic HQ, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. E Wing, 9th floor, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.

¶26

10. Aggarwal Enterprises Near Petrol Pump, Dabwali Road, Kalanwali Dist, Sirsa- 125201

¶27

11. Aman Roadlines, 6 Jankalyan Society, Maredia Compound Near Kokanipada, Masjid kurar,

¶28

Malad East, Mumbai 400097

¶29

12. Aneeta Roadlies Room No. B-10, Apna Nagar, Halav Pool, Hall Road, Kurla West Mumbai 400070.

¶30

13. ANS Transport 5/330-A Mullai Nagar,

¶31

Mohanur Road, Namakkal-637001.

¶32

14. Arungarariamman Transport, 138/4, 4^th Floor, LMR Shopping Arcade, Salem Road, Namakkal-637001.

¶33

15. Avadhesh Transport, C-304, Ramayan Park Society,

¶34

Opp Kaival Complex,

PMB

WP.70-2024

Near Navagam Bus Stand, Dindoli, Surat, Gujarat-394210.

¶39

16. Bhagat Singh & Sons, 365, Sane Guruji Marg Agripada Mumbai-400011.

¶40

17. Ever Green Trailor Service 3/335/1, Vallipuram (Auto Nagar) Near Ashok Leyland Training Center, Namakkal-637003.

¶41

18. G K Logistics

¶42

Group No. 7, Chaw 1 No. 81

¶43

Room No. 1974, Near Gurudwara, Tagore Nagar, Vikroli East

¶44

Mumbai-400083.

¶45

19. Chaudhary Bulk Carriers Plot No 61, Gami Industrial Park, Pawane Navi Mumbai-400705.

¶46

20. Garg Trading Co. Plot No 355, Ward 12/B Tagore Road, Gandhidham Kutch, Gujrat - 370201.

¶47

21. Manasa Enterprise B-86, APIIC Colony, Hyderabad-500062.

¶48

22. MTN Roadlines,

¶49

113, Village Jastana Khurd, Tehsil Dera Bassi, Sasnagar, Mohhali-40501.

¶50

23. NGR Oil Carrier

¶51

113, Village Jatsana Khund, Lalru, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab-140501.

¶52

24. Shiva Roadlines

¶53

Unit No.2. Plot No.7, Sector No.19C, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400706.

PMB

WP.70-2024

25. Shri Ganesh Enterprises

¶58

Shop No.01. Shubh Kalash CHS,

¶59

Plot No.35. Sec No 10E, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai – 410218.

¶60

26. Shyam Roadlines Room No.5, Chawl No.9, Pipe Road, Gurudutt Nagar, Rassiwala Tabela, Kurla-400070.

¶61

27. T A Roadlines D/1, Block N, Shram Shanti Building, Wadala Tarck Terminal, Mumbai 400037.

¶62

28. Vaibhav Logistics No.6/948-A, Velmurugan Towers,

¶63

Paramathi Road, Namakkal, Tamil Naidu – 637001.

¶64

29. Vasta Enterprises

¶65

603/B, Devashree Park, Bldg, Kolshet Road, Opp. Canara Road, Thane West-400607.

¶66

30. Aakash Ganga Roadlines A-101, Kartikya Tower CHS Ltd, Opp. St. Thomas Church,

¶67

Saibaba Nagar, Mira Road East, Dist Thane-401107.

¶68

31. Shree Datta Carriers

¶69

C-215, Steel Chamber Tower, Plot No. 514, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai 410218.

¶70

32. Raj Bulk Movers

¶71

Vashi Plaza Commercial Premises

¶72

Cp-Op Societies Limited, Office No.516. D-Wing, 3^rd Floor, Plot No 80/81, Sec-17, Vashi, Navi-Mumbai-400703.

PMB

WP.70-2024

33. Hariprabha Roadlines,

¶77

Room No.1818, CHL No.62, GR Floor, Group No.7, Tagore Nagar,

¶78

Opp. Bldg No 415, Near E.E Highway, Vikhroli East,

¶79

Mumbai - 400083.

¶80

34. Karan Carriers Shop No. 31, Muncipal Corporation Market, Railway Road, Haridwar – 249401.

¶81

35. Progressive Transport Co.

¶82

307, Kailesh Espalande,

¶83

Lal Bhadur Shashtri Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai 400086.

¶84

36. Sunitha Enterprises

¶85

H. No.3-6-521/1, Gharonda,

¶86

Surya Udaya Apartments, Himayath Nagar, Hyderbad, Telangana - 500029. .… Respondents

¶87

¶88

Mr Mahesh Shukla i/b. Ms Sonia Sunil, for the Petitioner.

¶89

Mr Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate a/w Mr R. V. Pawar i/b. Pragnya Legal, for Respondent-BPCL.

¶90

¶91

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶92

DATE : 3^rd APRIL, 2025

¶93

JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :-

¶94

1. The Petitioner – Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners

¶95

Association invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article

PMB

WP.70-2024

226 of the Constitution of India thereby prays to quash and set aside the tender notice dated 25^th October 2023 as well as quash and set aside the Letter of Intent dated 24^th April 2024. The Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent No.1 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (‘BPCL’ for short) to issue fresh tender in consonance with the earlier terms and conditions incorporated in the previous tender.

¶100

2. Mr Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that BPCL issues tender for providing service of transportation of Bulk Special Petroleum products (MTO/Hexane/SBP) and the members of the Petitioner Association participate in the said bidding. The contract is given to the successful bidders and this contract is for a period of five years. BPCL is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of petrol, diesel and their allied products.

¶101

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that its

¶102

members have rendered services, as per the terms and conditions of the contract being awarded to them, for over last 45 years, without any complaint. The process of bidding and thereafter awarding the contract and consequently execution of

PMB

WP.70-2024

the said contract by the successful bidders who are members of the Petitioner Association has been going on smoothly without any hindrance for 45 years. As the tenure of the earlier contract was to come to an end on 31^st December 2023, BPCL issued transport tender dated 25^th October 2023 by name Tender for Road Transportation of Bulk Special Petroleum products (MTO/Hexane/SBP) by bottom loading tank lorries from BPCL Mumbai Refinery for deliveries to BPCL storage locations and customers. However, by issuing this tender the Respondents have made drastic changes and alterations which are detrimental to the interest of the members of the Petitioner Association.

¶107

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the changes made in terms and conditions of the new tender are very stringent and badly affect the members of the Petitioner who are doing business with the BPCL for the last 45 years. A meeting was therefore convened on 2^nd November 2023 when

¶108

the transporters raised their concerns. A request was made to extend the deadline for bidding and it was mutually extended till 25^th November 2023.

PMB

WP.70-2024

5. Though the Respondents issued a corrigendum dated 11^th November 2023 incorporating some revised clauses, the same did not satisfy the concerns and objections raised by members of the Petitioner Association. Vide corrigendum dated 17^th November 2023, the deadline for submitting the tender was extended to 25^th November 2023. The Petitioner tried to justify

¶113

its stand by giving a comparative chart showing the salient features therein. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following chart to indicate the drastic difference between the earlier tender and the new tender as well as the demand/requirement of the Petitioner. The chart is as under :-

¶114

OLD TENDER	NEW TENDER	Demand/Requirement of the Petitioner
Minimum working	Not discussed nd	Minimum working was
and cost was discussed, taken	floated the tender	given in writing on 4/12/23 but not
in writing from the		considered in the
Transporters and the rates were finalized accordingly		tender and forcefully called for submission on 9/12/23
1.MS normal tank of 24KL	1.MS & SS tank of 29KL with bottom loading facility and kit cost MS Rs.7,00,000 & SS Rs.14,00,000 extra	Ready to fulfill subject to increase in price to Rs.3.19 RTKM (rate calculated on the basis of increase in cost)
2.BANK GUARANTEE	2.BANK GUARANTEE	It should be like same as existingtender

PMB

WP.70-2024

Rs.1,00,000 per	Minimum and
tanker & Rs.5,00,000 maximum	maximum is Rs.20,00,000
4.TOLL	4.TOLL	Should be reimbursed
It was not reimbursed	No reimbursement	(in accordance to POL/ATF tenders), because toll is increasing day by day and tender is valid for 5 years.
6.PRODUCT INSURANCE It was not insured by BPCL	6.PRODUCT INSURANCE No insurance	Insurance is the responsibility of consignor and consignee not of transporter. (Because the consignment value is more than Rs.30 Lakhs)
7.RTKM It was almost correct	7.RTKM Not correct	It should be taken as per vehicle odometer reading and not by google/VTS it always shows shortest route which travel through cities and small roads where HCV vehicles are not allowed. VTS also doesn’t work at places with no network (to be checked physically)

¶119

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action

¶120

on the part of the Respondents in altering the terms and conditions in the present tender vis-à-vis the earlier tender/s is

PMB

WP.70-2024

illegal and the same is made unilaterally without taking into consideration the financial capacity of the bidders who have been providing their services to the Respondents since last 45 years. Learned counsel submitted that by introducing such impractical changes in the new tender, BPCL is heavily burdening the members of the Petitioner, both financially and physically. It is submitted that there is no satisfactory justification for imposing such stringent clauses in the new tender. It is further submitted that prior to issuance and incorporation of new stringent terms and conditions, BPCL ought to have made a comparative study or analysis of the financial implications that would be caused to the members of the Petitioner Association. It is further submitted that awarding of letter of intent to Respondent Nos.10 to 36 is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play and there is a deliberate attempt of pick and choose being made to deprive the members of the Petitioner from participating despite they having extended their services diligently. Though the members of the Petitioner had participated in the bid under challenge, but had not received any communication from BPCL thereby illustrating reasons for rejecting their respective bid.

PMB

WP.70-2024

Learned counsel submitted that entire decision making process is arbitrary and without any justification and hence illegal.

¶129

7. Mr Nikhil Sakhardande, learned Senior Advocate for BPCL opposed the Petition. Our attention is invited to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of BPCL. It is submitted that there is no vested right created in favour of the members of the Petitioner Association and they are not precluded from participating in the tender process. It is submitted that the decision making process is fair and transparent and cannot be said to be arbitrary.

¶130

8. Heard learned counsel.

¶131

9. For bulk transportation of special petroleum products, which are subject matter of the tender, BPCL has been awarding contracts to eligible agency/s after inviting tenders for past several years. Prior to the issuance of the impugned tender, a tender was issued in the year 2016. The period of contract was five years. The said tender was extended from time to time which was valid up to 30^th June 2024. The earlier tender was invited under two bid system for transporting the petroleum products in tank lorries. The general as well as technical terms

PMB

WP.70-2024

and conditions of the said tender were set out in the earlier tender. The terms and conditions are set out in the earlier tender were based on the industry practice and other requirements in the year 2016.

¶136

10. In the year 2023, BPCL decided to float the tender inviting bids for award of contracts for bulk transportation of special petroleum products by bottom loading of tank lorries from its Mumbai refinery for delivery to its various locations and customers. The said requirement of inviting tenders for transportation of special petroleum products by bottom loading tank lorries was introduced by Respondent No.1 impleads of and instead of top loading tank lorries in compliance of the directives given by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB). Accordingly, a notice inviting tender (“NIT” for short) was issued on 26^th October 2023. The copy of the MPCB direction dated 3^rd February 2021 is placed on record. The NIT contains various terms and conditions such as EMD, security deposit, qualification criteria, age of tank lorry, initial emission norm, standard size of tank lorry, benchmark rates etc. The NIT also contains relevant oil industry transport discipline guidelines for transport of bulk petroleum products by road.

PMB

WP.70-2024

The terms and conditions set out in the said tender are incorporated by taking into account the business exigencies and dynamic nature of the industry. This incorporation according to BPCL aims to address evolving market conditions and requirements of the Respondent. In accordance with the terms of the said tender, a pre-bid meeting was held on 2^nd November 2023 with the bidders/prospective bidders to explain salient features of said tender, e-tendering process and to provide necessary clarifications if any required. The pre-bid meeting was attended by the prospective bidders including members of the Petitioner. The grievances raised by the prospective bidders in the pre-bid meeting including those of the members of the Petitioner Association by addressing wherever feasible, by revising/incorporating tender clauses in corrigendum dated 11^th November 2023. The deadline for submission of the bid was twice extended.

¶141

11. As against the requirement of 125 number of tank lorries, BPCL received bids offering lorry tanks much more than 125 in numbers. After receiving the bids from the interested parties, BPCL verified the completeness of the bid documents and thereafter the technical bid evaluation has been carried out

PMB

WP.70-2024

which includes the technical aspects of the bid, including the suitability of the transport vehicle i.e. tank lorry as specified in the said tender. The price bids have been opened and all formalities have been duly finalised. The Letter of Intent was issued upon completion of the scrutiny by BPCL’s evaluation committee.

¶146

12. To meet the allegations that the certain terms and conditions in the said tender are stringent and not suitable to the members of the Petitioner Association, BPCL submitted that the clauses had to be incorporated considering the industry practice, business exigencies and market dynamics. In the affidavit-in-reply, BPCL says that for a comprehensive understanding of the clauses outlined in the tender and the rationale behind incorporating such clauses is set out in a chart

¶147

which reads thus :-

¶148

Clause Description	Reasoning
Minimum Working and	Respondent no.1 has already
Cost	established the process of assessment of likely cost incurred which is being followed to workout Bench Mark Rates (BMR) of all transportation tenders and thus not obliged to depend on the consent/validation of any of the existing transporter and/or its
	association. But despite above,as a

PMB

WP.70-2024

	goodwill gesture, entertaining the
	request of Petitioner, inputs were sought from the representative of Petitioner for reference. Considering all their validated inputs, the rates were reviewed internally and the BMR rates were found to be falling within the price band given in the said Tender (i.e., lower price band & upper price band).
MS & SS tank of 29KL with bottom loading subject to increase in price to Rs.3.19 RTKM	Due consideration on account of bottom loading related costs have already been factored while working out the BMR. The price/rates sought i.e. Rs.3.19/- was found to be enormously high.
Bank Guarantee Minimum and Maximum is Rs.20,00,000/-	Bank Guarantee is the security deposit and purpose is already spelt out in clause no. 7.6 tender document and the same is subject to review from time to time. Bank Guarantee for transportation of all I&C products on delivery assistance basis was revised to Rs.20,00,000/- per contract w.e.f. September 2021 & became applicable for all of I&C transportation contracts published thereafter.
Payment of Toll	It was clarified during the pre-bid meeting that toll charges would be reviewed whenever a new toll plaza is added or there is a change in toll charges or an existing toll plaza is removed. Such changes however would be subject to validation/proofs and said tender already have provisions that Any changes in enroute toll charges will be appropriately factored & paid/recovered.

PMB

WP.70-2024

Product Insurance	Product transferred into tank lorry will be in the custody of transporter till such time it is delivered to the destination. So, the product responsibility lies with the transporter and hence the insurance required to continue be obtained by transporters as per already prevailing tender terms & conditions.
Extension of timelines	The Tender has been extended three times considering concerns & grievances of transporters, however considering business exigencies further extension was not possible and hence bidders were requested to submit the bids by 09.12.2023.

¶157

13. We do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the terms and conditions incorporated by BPCL in the NIT. Merely because the terms and conditions in the NIT are stringent is no ground to interfere in the tender process if otherwise we are satisfied that the decision has been taken by BPCL considering the market dynamics, business exigencies and other industrial requirement. It is well settled that Respondent-BPCL being the author of the said tender is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements. The members of the Petitioner Association having participated and executed the contract for the past 45 years does not confer any vested right in them to

¶158

insist that the terms and conditions in the NIT should be made

PMB

WP.70-2024

to suit their convenience. The members of the Petitioner Association are not prohibited from participating in the bidding process. In fact, BPCL took the views of the bidders into consideration and addressed their concerns wherever it was feasible. The deadline for submitting the bids was also extended from time to time acceding to the request of the prospective

¶163

bidders which included the members of the Petitioner Association. Against the requirement of 125 number of tank lorries, BPCL received bids offering lorry tanks much more than 125 in numbers. The Letter of Intent has been issued on completion of the scrutiny in favour of the successful bidders. We therefore do not find any merit in this Writ Petition.

¶164

14. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.

¶165

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶166

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge PMB Date: 07/04/2025 18:09:59

¶167

Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Power of One Logistics Park Private Limited vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Ssakash Developers and Builders Private Limited vs Om Jagdish Co. Operative Housing Society Limited

Balwant Sambhaji Patil vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Mayura Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change

Onkar Sanghatit Mahila Bachat Gat through Its President Shobha Vasant Khirwala vs the Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Scheme

Rajesh Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation, through the Director General