Dismissed

Southern Region S.C/S.T. and M.S.E.L.P.G.Tanker owners Association v. The Union of India

Madras HC19 Nov 2021WP/28773/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing respondents to accept a specific tender bid. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner did not appear and the matter had become infructuous due to authorization already granted to a successful bidder.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.

Southern Region S.C/S.T. and M.S.E.L.P.G.Tanker owners… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.28773 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.33612 of 2018 Southern Region S.C./S.T. And M.S.E. L.P.G. Tanker Owners Association, By its President. 186/4, Kavin Harsha Complex, 2^nd Street, Nethaji Nagar, Trichy Main Road, Namakkal. ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Union of India, New Delhi, By its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, Sastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation, Mumbai. 3. The Regional Officer, Indian Oil Corporation, Southern Region Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Nungappakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. 4. The Tender Inviting Authority, Indian Oil Corporation, Nungappakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. 5. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai.

¶5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶6

The Regional Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Southern Region Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai.

¶7

The Tender Inviting Authority, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Southern Region Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai. 8. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai. 9. The Zonal Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Egmore, Chennai.

¶8

The Tender Inviting Authority, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Egmore, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶9

Prayer:-

¶10

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accepts the tender bid of the S.C. And S.T. Applicants in the category of proposed Tank Truck for the transportation of L.P.G. on road in Tamilnadu for quoting more than one state in the Tender bid as per class 9A of the notification.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶12

For R1 : Mr.J.Madhanagopal Rao Senior Panel Counsel For R2 to R4 : M/S.Mohammed Fiyaz For R5 to R10 : Mr.M.Vijayan For M/S.King & Patridge

¶13

O R D ER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a mandamus on the respondents to accept the tender bid of the S.C. and S.T. Applicants in the category of proposed Tank Truck for the transportation of L.P.G. on road in Tamilnadu for quoting more than one state in the Tender bid as per class 9A of the notification.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, none appeared for the petitioner. Even when the Writ Petition was taken on earlier occasion, i.e. 25.01.2019, there was no representation for the petitioner.

¶17

Mr.Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 10 submits that the prayer sought for, in this Writ Petition has become infructuous, as the respondents, both Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation have already given authorization, vide Letter of Authorization (LOAs) dated 08.10.2018 and 21.09.2018, to the successful bidder for the past five years.

¶18

In the light of the above submission, this Court is of the view that, since LOA was already granted to the successful bidder, the petitioner has not shown any interest to pursue this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

jd/sd

¶23

¶24

The Principal Secretary,

¶25

Union of India,

¶26

New Delhi,

¶27

Ministry of Petroleum, Sastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi.

¶28

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation,

¶29

Mumbai.

¶30

The Regional Officer, Indian Oil Corporation, Southern Region Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Nungappakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶31

The Tender Inviting Authority, Indian Oil Corporation, Nungappakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

5.	The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai.
6.	The Regional Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Southern Region Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai.
7.	The Tender Inviting Authority, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Southern Region Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai.
8.	The Chairman cum Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai.
9.	The Zonal Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Egmore, Chennai.
10.	The Tender Inviting Authority, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Egmore, Chennai.
+2c	cs to M/S.King & Patridge , Advocate,	S.R.No. 60217
		W.P.No.28773 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.33612 of 2018

¶34

MG[co] NSK 03/01/2022

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Southern Region S.C/S.T. and M.S.E.L.P.G.Tanker owners Association v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Southern Region S.C/S.T. and M.S.E.L.P.G.Tanker owners Association v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Fathima Vs The District Collector

K.Subbamal Vs Ms.Pooja Bhatt

Karunai Childrens Home Vs The Director of Social

Cogzidel Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Managing Director

Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical Vs Union of India

A.Munikrishnan Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt