Unsuccessful bidders challenged a separate tender restricted to successful bidders for tank trucks left unsupplied under earlier awards. The court upheld the tender and dismissed the writ petitions, accepting that the original tender did not preclude separate procurement of the shortfall.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10836 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M./S.ADAMS TRANSPORTS CHITHRAPUZHA, IRIMBANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 309, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 2
THRISSUR-680 721.
7 M/S. ALLIED SURFACE LOGISTICS, 6/138/1, MUKKADAKKAL COMPLEX, CHITHRAPUZHA, IRUMPANAM, COCHIN-682 306. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC K.JOHN MATHAI SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11874/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11874 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
V.K.LALITHAKUMARI AGED 70 YEARS
W/O.K.V. RAMAKRISHNAN, LAGI NIVAS, KUTTEMPEROOR P.O. MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA 689 623.
BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD REGIONAL CONTRACT CELL, MARKETING DIVISION, REGIONAL CONTRACT CELL, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI, NUNGAMBAKKA, CHENNAI -600034, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACT CELL), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVISION, REGIONAL CONTRACT CELL, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI, NUNGABAKKA, CHENNAI- 600034.
3 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY, NAGAR, COCHIN682 036.
BY ADVS.
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 4
SRI.NANDAKUMAR M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN NAYANPALLY RAMOLA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).10836/2021, 12449/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12449 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
FASTTRACK LOGISTICS
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHAIJAN, AGED 50, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, NEDUVELI HOUSE, THURAVUR P.O., ANGAMALY-683572.
BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR BENNY ANTONY PAREL S.SIBHA
RESPONDENTS:
3 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CONTRACT CELL, CHENNAI. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 6
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11874/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13265 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 CONCORD TRANSPORTS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,JOHNY.C.D,AGED 65, S/O DEVASSY,KALAMPARAMBIL BUILDING, PERUMBAVOOR ROAD,KALADY.P.O,683574.
2 FASTTRACK LOGISTICS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHAIJAN,AGED 50 YEARS,S/O VELAYUDHAN,NEDUVELI HOUSE,THURAVUR.P.O, ANGAMALY-683572. BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR P.M.MOHAMMED SALIH PARVATHY VIJAYAN ARJUN ANIL BENNY ANTONY PAREL SIBHA S
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS HEADQUARTERS AT 079/3, SADIQ NAGAR,J B TITO MARG,NEW DELHI-110049.
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 8
3 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CONTRACT CELL,CHENNAI-600018. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K. NANDAKUMAR M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC. K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11874/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
9
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) Nos.10836, 11874, 12449 & 13265 of 2021
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2021.
J U D G M E N T
The question arising for consideration in these matters being common, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2 . The parties and documents are referred to in
this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.13265 of 2021.
3 . The matters relate to the tenders floated by M/s.Indian Oil Company Limited (the Company). The Company issued Ext.P7 notice inviting e-tenders for road transportation of bulk petroleum products from its Cochin Terminal for a period
of three years from 01.11.2020. The total tank trucks required
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 10
by the Company for the said purpose was 291, consisting 151 tank trucks having the capacity of 12-16 kilolitres and 140 tank trucks having the capacity of 18-40 kilolitres. Out of the said requirement, among others, 25% was reserved for Micro and Small Enterprises. In terms of the said tender notice, the tenderers were required to offer tank trucks having the capacities aforesaid in the proportion of 1:1 and the maximum number of tank trucks that could be offered by one tenderer was limited to 29. It was however made clear in the tender notice that the tenderers are free to offer tank trucks otherwise than in the said proportion also. Those who do not have ready built tank trucks were also permitted participate in the tender. It was, however, clarified in the tender notice that those tenderers who have offered tank trucks in the proportion 1:1 will be included in one lot namely Lot No.1 and would be preferred over the remaining tenderers. Similarly, it was clarified in the tender notice that those tenderers who have offered tank trucks otherwise than in accordance with the
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 11
proportion 1:1 will be included in another lot namely Lot No.2 and they will be considered for grant of award of contract only if the required number of trucks cannot be procured from the tenderers included in Lot No.1. Again it was clarified in the tender notice that the remaining eligible tenderers who do not have ready built tank trucks will be included in another lot namely Lot No.3 and they will be considered if the required number of trucks cannot be procured from the tenderers included in Lot Nos.1 and 2. It is prescribed in the notice that the lowest tenderer (L1) in Lot No.1 will be preferred over others and if there are more tenderers offering the same lowest rate, tenderers among them, who have offered more number of vehicles will be preferred over others. Similarly, it is prescribed in the notice that if there are more number of tenderers offering lowest rate and equal number of vehicles, allotments will be made having regard to the average age of the tank trucks offered, by preferring those who have offered new tank trucks over those who have offered old tank trucks. The
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 12
tenders received pursuant to Ext.P7 notice have been processed and contracts in respect of the entire fleet of 291 tank trucks were awarded to 18 tenderers.
4 . The notice inviting tender provides that the
tenderer to whom contract is awarded has to make available the tank trucks within the time stipulated therein. A few among the tenderers who have been awarded the contracts have however not placed the tank trucks offered by them within the time stipulated in the notice. The Company, in the circumstances, issued Ext.P4 tender notice inviting tenders for procuring the deficit number of tank trucks namely 35 numbers, having the capacity of 12-16 kilolitres and 44 numbers having the capacity of 18-40 kilolitres. It is prescribed in Ext.P4 tender notice that only those tenderers who have been awarded contracts pursuant to Ext.P7 tender notice would be entitled to participate in the said tender.
5 . The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 is
one of the tenderers who has participated in the tender process
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 13
pursuant to Ext.P7 notice. They have offered 28 tank trucks in the proportion 1:1 and claimed allotment against the quota earmarked for Micro and Small Enterprises. Although the petitioner had offered maximum number of tank trucks and had quoted the lowest rate, he was not awarded any contract. Instead, contracts in respect of tank trucks reserved for Micro and Small Enterprises have been awarded to respondents 5 to 7. The case set out by the petitioner in the said writ petition is that the decision of the Company to award the contracts in respect of tank trucks reserved for Micro and Small Enterprises to respondents 5 to 7 in preference to the petitioner is arbitrary. The stand taken by the Company in this matter is that since there were more than one tenderer who have offered the same number of vehicles and the lowest rate, contracts have been awarded, having regard to the age of the tank trucks and since the entire quota earmarked for Micro and Small Enterprises was exhausted by tenderers who have been placed above the petitioner in Lot No.1 itself, contracts could not have
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 14
been awarded to the petitioner.
6 . The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11874 of 2021 is
another tenderer who has participated in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P7 notice. She offered 4 trucks having the capacity of 12-16 kilolitres. According to the petitioner, as she has offered the lowest rate, she should have been awarded contract in respect of the 4 tank trucks offered by her. The stand taken by the Company in this matter is that since the petitioner has not offered tank trucks in the proportion 1:1 as mentioned in the tender notice, she was entitled to be considered for award only on her turn in Lot No.2 and the quota was exhausted by tenderers who are included in Lot No.1 itself.
7 . The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.12449 and 13265 of 2021 also are tenderers who have participated in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P7 invitation and who were not awarded the contract, though they have offered the L1 rate, as the quota was exhausted by tenderers who have been placed above them in the respective lots. The case set out by the
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 15
petitioners in th e said writ petitions in essence is that the tank trucks included in Ext.P4 notice being tank trucks covered by Ext.P7 notice, there cannot be a separate tender process for procuring the same and the contracts in respect of the same ought to have been awarded to tenderers who have participated in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P7 notice on the basis of their merit . It is also their case that at any rate, the provision in Ext.P4 notice confining the opportunity to participate in the tender to those tenderers who have been awarded contract pursuant to Ext.P7 notice, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners therefore seek directions to the Company to award the contracts in respect of the tank trucks covered by Ext.P4 notice to the tenderers who have participated in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P7 notice on the basis of their merit. T he stand taken by the Company in these matters is that Ext.P7 tender stands closed upon awarding contracts in respect of the entire fleet of tank trucks and upon refunding the earnest money deposited by the
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 16
unsuccessful tenderers and no further contract can be awarded based on the said notice. It is also the stand of the Company that in terms of Ext.R1(b) circular issued by the competent authority of the Company, the deficit number of tank trucks can be procured only from the existing operators.
8 . Heard Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.12449 of 2021 and 13265 of 2021, Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.10836 of 2021 and 11874 of 2021 as also Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Company.
9 . Though very many contentions have been taken by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.12449 of 2021 and 13265 of 2021 in their respective writ petitions, the only contention raised by their learned counsel, Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, at the time of hearing was that having regard to the specific provisions in Ext.P7 tender notice, the Company is precluded from issuing a fresh tender notice for procuring the
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 17
deficit number of tank trucks covered by Ext.P7 notice. It was argued by the learned counsel that the scheme of Ext.P7 tender notice is that if the tenderers who are awarded the contrac ts fail to furnish tank trucks within the time stipulated in the tender notice, the allotment process shall be continued until the Company is in a position to procure the entire fleet of tank trucks covered by the tender notice. The learned counsel elaborated the said argument referring to the provision in Ext.P7 tender notice that the same is issued for the purpose of awarding the contracts for transportation of bulk petroleum products for a period of three years from 01.11.2020. According to the learned counsel, insofar as Ext.P7 tender notice was issued for procuring 291 tank trucks, there cannot be any separate tenders for the said requirement during the period mentioned in Ext.P7 notice. The learned counsel reinforced the said contention placing reliance on the provision in Ext.P7 tender notice that the tender process initiated in terms of the said notice will be continued till the requirement of
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 18
the trucks against the said tender is fully met. It was also argued by the learned counsel, placing reliance on clause E(8) of the terms and conditions of the tender that a fresh tender notice in the nature of Ext.P4 can be issued only in the even t of closure and resitement of a location.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.10836 of 2021 and 11874 of 2021 supported the arguments advanced by Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor. He also placed emphasis on the provision in Ext.P7 tender notice that the tender process initiated in terms of the same will be continued till requirement of tank trucks against that tender is fully met.
11. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the Company argued that the tender process initiated in terms of Ext.P7 notice stands concluded upon awarding contracts for the entire fleet of 291 tank trucks required for the Company and upon refunding the earnest money deposit furnished by the unsuccessful tenderers. According to the learned Senior
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 19
Counsel, fresh contracts cannot be awarded on the basis of the said tender process. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that merely for the reason that tenders have been invited pursuant to Ext.P7 notice for a specified period, it cannot be said that a fresh tender process cannot be initiated for procuring tank trucks which the tenderers to whom contracts have been awarded failed to provide . It was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the requirement of tank trucks against Ext.P7 tender notice was fully met when the company awarded contracts pursuant to the said tender notice and it cannot, therefore, be contended that Ext.P4 tender notice was issued violating the stipulation to that effect in Ext.P7. It was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that clause E(8) of the terms and conditions of the tender deals only with closure and resitement of a location and the provisions therein cannot be interpreted to contend that a fresh tender can be issued only when a location is closed and resited. That apart, placing reliance on Annexure R1(b) circular issued
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 20
by the competent authority of the Company, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that insofar as a full fledged selection process has been completed for procuring the tank trucks required for the Company for a period, it is the policy of the Company that there need not be a fresh tender process for procuring additional tank trucks required during the period, and the same can be procured from the successful tenderers themselves. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that none of the petitioners have challenged Annexure R1(b) circular and that the direction contained therein cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner.
12. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties on either side, the only question that falls for consideration in these matters is whether the Company is justified in issuing Ext.P4 tender notice for procuring the tank trucks covered by Ext.P7 tender notice.
13. It is trite that an instrumentality of a State is
free to settle the terms of its tenders and the same are not
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 21
open to judicial scrutiny unless it is shown that the same are actuated by malice. Similarly, when it comes to the understanding and interpretation of the terms of a tender, in the absence of any malice attributed to the authorities, the understanding and interpretation of the tender inviting authority shall be accepted by the court, for the tender inviting authority is the best Judge to decide as to how the tender documents are to be interpreted. Needless to say that if two interpretations are possible, then the interpretation of the author must be accepted and the courts would interfere in matters of contracts involving State instrumentalities only to prevent arbitrariness, rationality, bias, malafides or perversity [See Silppi Constructions Contractors v . Union of India , (2020)16 SCC 489]. With this approach in mind, I shall deal with the present case.
14. As noted, though very many contentions have been raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions concerning the correctness of the awards made by the Company pursuant
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 22
to Ext.P7 tender notice, their learned counsel have not pursued any of those contentions. Instead, as noted, the only point pressed into service was concerning the justifiability of Ext.P4 tender notice. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Company, merely for the reason that Ext.P7 tender notice was issued for procuring tank trucks mentioned therein for a period of three years from 01.11.2020, it cannot be said that the Company is precluded from inviting a fresh tender for making up any shortfall in the requirement on account of the failure on the part of the tenderers in providing tank trucks, especially when it has a policy in place prescribing the manner in which such shortfalls are to be made up.
15. True, it is provided for in sub-clause (c) of
Clause 1.11 in Ext.P7 tender notice that if the total requirement of tank trucks is not met in the process mentioned in sub-clause (b), the Company shall offer L1 rates to balance tendere rs in the or der of their ranking namely L-2, L-3, etc. for their acceptance and the above process will be continued till
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 23
the requirement of the trucks against the tender is fully met. It is also provided in sub-clause (d) of clause 1.11 of the tender notice that if the total requirement of the tank trucks is not met by the process mentioned in sub-clause (b) and sub-clause (c), the Company may either negotiate further with L-2, L-3 and so on who have quoted rates or cancel the tender or go for other alternative courses mentioned therein. Sub-clauses (b), (c) and (d) of clause 1.11 falling under the head 'EVALUATION OF TENDERS' read thus:
“b) PRICE BID RANKING of the tenderers i.e. L-1, L-2, L-3, etc shall be decided on minimum percentages quoted for all categories in the Reverse Auction. In case rates offered by L-1 tenderers in the Reverse Auction, are not acceptable, then IOCL has the discretion to negotiate with L-1 tenderers to bring down the rates. L-1 rates shall be finalised and first allocation of TTs shall be done to L-1 tenderers. Selection Matrix of TTs at finalised L-1 rates shall be as follows:-
| Rank | as per | LOT-1 | LOT-2 | LOT-3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | Bid | |||
| L1 | Selection 1 | Selection 2 | Selection 3 |
c) If the total requirement of TTs is not met by above
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 24
process from at b), IOCL shall offer L-1 rates to balance tenderers in order of their ranking i.e. L-2, L-3,L-4 ….... etc. for their acceptance. The above process shall continue till requirement of the trucks is fully met against this tender.
d) If the total requirement of TTs is not met by above process at b) and c), IOCL reserves the right to either further negotiate with L-2, L-3......Ln tenderers OR Cancel the tender and go for fresh NIT OR invite public EOI at established L-1 rates to fulfill the required nos. of TTs.”
A reading of the extracted clauses would show beyond doubt that what is indicated therein is that the Company would pursue the tender process until it is able to procure the tank requirements in terms of the notice. As noted, the petitioners would interpret the said clauses to contend that even the deficit tank truck requirement of the Company arising on account of the failure on the part of the tenderers who have been awarded the contracts to provide tank trucks are to be procured in terms of Ext.P7 notice itself, whereas the Company would contend that the said provisions in the tender notice are
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 25
not intended, and cannot be made use of, for procuring the deficit number of tank trucks. In a dispute of this nature, according to me, this court is bound to accept the stand of the Company and I do so also for the reason that the Company had a policy in place right from the year 2015 for dealing with such a contingency.
16. Again, the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on clause E(8) of the terms and conditions of the tender, that a fresh tender is provided in terms of the tender notice only in the contingency referred to in that clause and in no other circumstances, is only to be rejected. Clause E(8) of the terms and conditions of the tender reads thus:
“8. Resitement of an old top loading location to
a new top loading location – In case a location is closed and resited to a new location (where closed location and resited location are both top-loading locations), Company will have right to direct Contractors to shift to the new location without any compensation and at the same rates, terms and conditions.
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 26
Those Contractors who wish to withdraw from the pool or not offer TTs at the same terms & conditions will be allowed to do so. In such an event where Company will require additional TTs(gap created from NIT Nos. vs. TTs not offered during re-sitement) option will be given to existing willing Contractors to bridge the gap through a gate notice and if requirement is not met from existing Contractors, then, Company reserves the right to go for NIT or Public EOI.”
A reading of the extracted clause would indicate that the same deals only with the closure and resitement of a location and it cannot be interpreted to contend that the Company cannot issue a tender notice in the nature of Ext.P4. Here again, the specific case of the Company is that the clause aforesaid in the tender notice does not apply at all in the matter of the Company procuring deficit number of tank trucks, if the tenderers in a tender process to whom the contracts have been awarde d fail to provide the tank trucks covered by the awards. I do not find any reason to reject the said stand of the Company.
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 27
17. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Company, it is seen that Ext.P4 tender notice has been issued in the light of AnnexureR1(b) circular issued by the competent authority of the Company. The petitioners do not challenge Annexure R1(b) circular in these proceedings. That apart, insofar as the contracts in respect of the entire fleet of tank trucks covered by Ext.P7 notice have been awarded after a due process of selection, a circular in the nature of Annexure R1(b) permitting award of contracts for the deficit arose on account of the failure on the part of the tenderers in providing the tank trucks, to those who have come out successful in the selection process, instead of taking up the burden of undertaking a fresh selection process, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any matter. True, there would be certainly two views on the issue whether it was proper on the part of the Company in preferring tenderers who have already been awarded contracts over similarly placed tenderers who have not been awarded with contracts. But, according to me, the
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 28
aforesaid cannot be a reason for this court to interfere with the
process commenced by the Company as per Ext.P4 notice.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ
petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Mn
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 29
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10836/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE THE TENDER FOR R BULK PETROLEUM P NO.SRCC/PT/064/K |
RELEVANT EXTRACT OF OAD TRANSPORTATION OF RODUCTS VIDE TENDER ESO/2020-21. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE 28.01.2021 PUBLI RESPONDENT. |
SUMMARY REPORT DATED SHED BY THE 1ST |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 05.02.2021 THE CORPORATION. |
EMAIL COMMUNICATION SENT BY PETITIONER TO |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 18.04.2021 PUBLISHING THE P 10.03.2021. |
TENDER SUMMARY REPORT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RICE BID UPDATED ON |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER B RESPONDENT ON 14 |
COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY EFORE THE 4TH .03.2021 THROUGH EMAIL. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE 14.03.2021 SUBMI BEFORE THE 3RD R |
REPRESENTATION DATED TTED BY THE PETITIONER ESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE 16.03.2021 SUBMI BEFORE THE 3RD R EMAIL. |
COMMUNICATION DATED TTED BY THE PETITIONER ESPONDENT THROUGH |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.0 MINISTRY OF MICR ENTERPRISES. |
PROCUREMENT POLICY 3.2012 PUBLISHED BY THE O, SMALL AND MEDIUM |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER ON 16 TENDERING AUTHOR |
EMAIL FORWARDED BY THE .03.2021 TO THE ITY. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE | REPLY DATED 17.03.2021 |
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 30
FORWARDED BY THE CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER THROUGH EMAIL.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 07.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2017 IN WA NO.1999/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2021 IN WPC NO.7342/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE REF.NO.KESO/OPS/51/POL/PT/IMNM/1617/252 DATED 15.06.2021 (WRONGLY TYPED AS 15.06.2020)
EXHIBIT P15 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF IOC STATE OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING GATE TENDER FOR POL CONTRACT AT COCHIN TERMINAL VIDE
REF.NO.SRCC/PT/064/KESO/2020-21/GATE TENDER/JUN 2021
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREBID MEETING HELD ON 09.09.2020 EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 17.03.2021 EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 25.03.2021 EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 20.11.2015
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 31
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11874/2021
| PETITIONER'S E | XHIBITS | |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE 29.05.2017 FOR BU PETROLEUM PRODUCT TRUCKS OF THE PET CORPORATION. |
LETTER OF INTENT DATED LK TRANSPORTATION OF S ISSUED TO 4 TANK ITIONER BY THE |
| Exhibit P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING T BY THE 2ND RESPON OF BULK PETROLEUM |
RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ENDER (NIT) PUBLISHED DENT FOR TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS. |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TOWAR SUBMITTED BY THE |
RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DS EXT. P2 NIT PETITIONER. |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE 28.1.2021 PUBLISH RESPONDENT. |
SUMMARY REPORT DATED ED BY THE 1ST |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE 05.02.2021 SHOWIN PAGE IN THE WEBSI RESPONDENT. |
STATUS REPORT DATED G THE LI INFORMATION TE OF THE 1ST |
| Exhibit P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE 08.04.2021 IN WPC HON'BLE COURT. |
JUDGMENT DATED NO. 8898/2021 OF THIS |
| Exhibit P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE 16.04.2201 SUBMIT BEFORE THE 2ND RE |
REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER SPONDENT. |
| Exhibit P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 18.04.2021 RESPONDENT PUBLIS UPDATED ON 10.03. |
TENDER SUMMARY REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND HING THE PRICE BID 2021. |
| Exhibit P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE 03.05.2021 FORWAR RESPONDENT TO THE |
INTIMATION DATED DED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. |
| Exhibit P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE | CURRENT LI |
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 32
TRANSPORTATION RATE (INCLUSIVE OF TAXES), AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE ON 05.02.2021.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE REF.NO.DESO/OPS/51/POL/PT/IMNM/16-17/252 DATED 15.06.2021(WRONGLY TYPES AD 15.06.2021) ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF IOC STATE OFFICE, TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.06.2021 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, IOC-STATE OFFICE
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE FROM THE MSTC LTD PORTAL ACCESSED ON 05.02.2021 ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF TENDER SUMMARY REPORTS PRINTED ON 07.06.2021
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 33
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12449/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL CORRIGENDUM DATED NIL. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.6.2021. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.6.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.6.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION FOR ROAD TRANSPORTATION OF BULK PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/3/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) No.10836 of 2021 & con. cases 34
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13265/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED NIL |
TECHNICAL CORRIGENDUM |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERRED BY THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN |
REPRESENTATION 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE T DATED 14.06.2021 |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERRED BY THE THE 3RD RESPONDEN |
REPRESENTATION 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE T DATED 14.06.2021 |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN OIL CORPOR |
NOTICE DATED NIL OF THE ATION. |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE 15.03.2021 ISSUED PETITIONER BY THE |
COMMUNICATION DATED TO THE FIRST THIRD RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE 15.03.2021 ISSUED PETITIONER BY THE |
COMMUNICATION DATED TO THE SECOND THIRD RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE ROAD TRANSPORTATI PRODUCTS ISSUED B DATED NIL |
TENDER NOTIFICATION FOR ON OF BULK PETROLEUM Y THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P8 RESPONDENTS' |
TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING DATED 09. |
PREBID – MINUTES OF 09.2021 |
| EXHIBITS |
ANNEXURE R1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TENDER NO.SRCC/PT/064/KESO/2020-21 ANNEXURE R1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 20.11.2015
1 issue framed by the court
Was the Company justified in issuing a separate tender restricted to successful tenderers to procure tank trucks not supplied under the original awards?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of IndiaApplied¶110
(2020)16 SCC 489 · Who else cites this
M./S.ADAMS TRANSPORTS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACT CELL), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
THE JOINT DIRECTOR, MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSME) DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (DI)
M/S. KANNAMPUZHA TRANSPORTING COMPANY
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
