Dismissed

K. Jalender Reddy v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division)

Telangana HC15 Apr 2014WP/11361/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging the respondent Corporation's decision to accept only two of the petitioner's five offered tank trucks. The Court held that the tender response was an invitation and the petitioner has no right to insist on accepting all offered trucks if discretion was exercised within the rules.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a representation before the appropriate authority of the respondent Corporation.

K. Jalender Reddy Vs M/s. Indian Oil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

K. Jalender Reddy, Prop. M/s. KJR Transport Co., O/o. 4-9/2, Buddha Nagar, Peerzadiguda Village, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, Pin – 500 092.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), Rep. by its Chief Terminal Manager, Phase-III, IDA, Cherlapally, Hyderabad & another

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2014

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Tender notification was issued on 03.10.2013 for providing Tank Trucks for transportation of bulk petroleum products with effect from 01.01.2014 or from any later date. The tender notice prescribes that respondent Corporation is in need of approximately 22 tank trucks with capacity of 12 KL and 125 tank trucks with capacity of 18 KL, 20 KL, 24 KL and above. The petitioner applied for provision of contract and offered five tank trucks, three owned by him and two on lease. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent Corporation has accepted two tank trucks and accordingly, orders were issued on 03.01.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he has five tank trucks with him and only two tank trucks were awarded contract for transportation of bulk petroleum products, the other three trucks would be idle, which would cause him irreparable loss and suffering. With a fond hope of getting a contract with the respondent Corporation, the petitioner has acquired five tank trucks. There is no justification not to accept other three trucks.

¶16

2. According to Clause 6 of the tender notification, the respondent Corporation reserves the right to accept or reject any or all the tenders in part or in totality, or to negotiate with any or all the tenderers. This shows wider discretion is reserved for the respondent Corporation and in exercise of their discretion, they have accepted only two trucks.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any illegality or irregularity in the selection process and no mala fides are attributed. He has not pointed out violations of the terms of tender notification nor the discriminatory manner of selection of others to the detriment of the petitioner. The only plea urged by the petitioner is that since he has made a provision for five tank trucks, but only two trucks were accepted by the respondent Corporation and the remaining tank trucks cannot be utilized for any other purpose, he would suffer irreparable hardship as huge money is spent on them and cannot be recouped by any other means. The said ground cannot be a reason for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters concerning awarding of contracts. It was only an invitation and merely because the petitioner offers more trucks, he cannot insist as a matter of course to accept all trucks offered by him. No such right vests in him merely because he participates in tender process. Therefore, there is no merit in the Writ Petition.

¶18

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a representation before the

¶19

appropriate authority of the respondent Corporation making such a request. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 15^th April, 2014 KL

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2014

¶23

Date: 15^th April, 2014

¶24

K. Jalender Reddy v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Jalender Reddy v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kauser Abida, Vs The Union of India

Dr. U. Rama Varma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Premier Developments, Vs State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch

N.H.Mrunalini, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohan Das, Vs The Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer

M/ s. R.R. Gopal Vs Mr.Khusro Pasha