10.Hence this Court is of the view that the petitioner in W.P.No.9754 of 2017 is liable to to succeed on two counts. Firstly, he is ready and willing to offer his two vehicles for the accepted rate. Secondly, his vehicles are of the year 2017. The learned Additional Advocate General would fairly submit that these two vehicles of the petitioner would be considered based upon the year of manufacture of the vehicles. The other question for consideration is with respect to the vehicles owned by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13025 to 13030 of 2017. Unfortunately, in these cases, none of the petitioners could be compared with the other successful tenderers, though offering the same amount, in view of the year of manufacture being not the same. In other words, the vehicles owned by them are older in nature. Therefore, there is no point in considering their vehicles. Admittedly, there are other tenderers, whose tenders were accepted, are having vehicles, which are new. For 9000 litres capacity tanker lorries, none of the petitioners would come in the zone of consideration. Therefore, these two petitioners will have to be considered and given the contract by the respondents. The others as in the case of 6000 litres capacity tanker lorries do not come in the zone of consideration as the selected tenderers got their vehicles registered much later. What is required is 323 vehicles having 9000 litres capacity and sufficient vehicles having 2017 registration are available. Therefore, the vehicles of the petitioners in these writ petitions except two, which are manufactured in the year 2017, according to the petitioners, cannot be considered.
