Allowed

M/s.Kesari Marine Service v. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Telangana HC7 Nov 2025WP/16559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bunker supply tender: IOCL cancelled the petitioner's letter of acceptance for delay in readying its barge despite an earlier High Court order holding such cancellation illegal and directing reconsideration. The court set aside the impugned order as mechanical, held the writ maintainable notwithstanding contractual nature, and directed restoration of the contract.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2025 set aside; 1st respondent directed to take consequential steps permitting petitioner to carry on contractual obligations per LOA and work order within two weeks.

M/s.Kesari Marine Service Vs The Indian Oil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR

¶3

NA Ar H YD E RA B A D ,,, ""]ff"i$Hlfiifi il :l FRIDAY.T+IE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWo rHousAND AND rwrrvrv rvi-''

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16559 oF 202s

¶7

Between:

¶8

lj#$tl;i;qfl *ip:ffi^{Rj:,ffi bi,fi} ,"i"fi $iiJ#-%,:,sl

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 J[%,'if]%,3Jln*:'3;At';l.lg t%SSf ,!y.its luthorrsed orricer Marketins

¶12

2 ui:k[il"=#{'J5'o?fi!^"^{s2, MVPDoubreRoad MVp} corony, sector-l

¶13

3 ffi:i,,"j;#:#S#?f,8f, ,.B;.rJ?: .,t:,,;,?,:ii,::?i,ji,tt#*Ti oBl"J

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction' decraring the proceedings dt.06-06-2025, No. rocA,/vzclBARGE/KESART of the 1st Respondent, as arbitrary, iregar, unjust, as in vioration of principres of naturar justice and as in vioration of the orders dtd.o7-05-2025 0f this Hon,bre court in w p No 1 5034 12025, ser aside the same, and direct the . l st Respondent to take further steps, to entrust the work to the petitioner, as per the LoA dtd. 20-02-2025 and the work order dated 12.03.2025, issued to the petitioner, for Bunker suppry of brack oir and white oir, through tanker barges, to the coastar or

¶16

-r

¶17

foreign run sea going vessels berthed at inner harbor oril )r harbor and outer anchorage of vizag port

¶18

o ,AN :10F2 025

¶19

petition under Sect the arridavir ,,,u0 ," ,,*lo,l::1;Poc"|,..|:|ngth:i,:,,the^cir': msrances stated in . suspend the operation . BA R G E, K E sA R,,., "o petition o x J:"; :{iliii: 'vrPvrruelrL pendlng ;t',lril dispos ri^;', of the^{:", l:ffii:;} above writ

¶20

IANo :2 OF 2025

¶21

Between:

¶22

ffi'n{,ff,il,R81;i". i"fffi t,r-."#J;:?rruillif:l,r#,"-*{ii}J:if#:,j;,.efl

¶23

AND

¶24

...Vacate petitioner/ , espondent No.2

¶25

1 fl "qf ,i15ffi;73"fiH+,.p,'g,f ;;Lf ii{q#nfi ,i^jLnJj#lj1sl

¶26

...RESPONDENTS/ W i,T PETITIONER

¶27

2 Jll?,'i,o'%,31r*:,,Ti ff .h,fl ,t",x; Lr flo'i?rf:f "'"ed rr ricer Marketins

¶28

3 ffihjs,fil. ? "?s^{f, " E ;, 5.1?l} "UlJ,^{B ;i \i,i:?,,,qji,i :*,1"nts} 530003^Plot

¶29

^ts.ll,

¶30

"'RESPoNDENTS/F:| SPoNDENTS

¶31

petition under Sectior ;:;:iri: :x fi:triilrj ;ir:x ; ; :T^jj::"r ;

¶32

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI S'S' PRASAD, REPRESENTING FOR} SRI S N CHIDAMBARASASTRY

¶33

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'1: SRIVEDULA SRINIVAS' DOMINIC} FERNANDES^{(SC FOR locL)}

¶34

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2: SRI G' VIDYA SAGAR' APPEAARING ON} BEHALF OF^{SRI M. AVINASH REDDY}

¶35

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.3: SRI S'RAVI, REP FORSRI M'P' KASHYAP}

¶36

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶37

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAPr'.]iA}

¶38

WRIT PETITIO^{N No. 16559 OF 2o25}

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

The c:rsc of petitioncr^{is that pursLlitr} 't^tothe Tender Noticc^{issucd by Lhe lst respondentfor Bunkt r supply ol} black oil and^{n'hrte oilthroughtanker barg': tothc} coastal/foreign rull^{sea going vesselsberthedat irtlt r harbor,} outer lrarbor, and^{outeranchorage of VtzagPort' Petitioner} along s,ith others^{sr.tbmitted tenders.The nameol- [:titioner's} barge IS CAPSTAR^{1. Alter gcttrngfullysatis I :dabout} Petitioner's bargc,^{the 1'rRespondentaccepted t te Lender} submitted by them.^{l'ctitionertcnderedfor 30%tr'].1iportation} of thc^()il and it^{stoocl as L2 among [he Tenderers,Ibeing for} 507o transportation.^{It is submittccl that the 1st lR:spondent} issued Letter ol^{Acceptancc(LOA) dated20 'O2''20} '^{5, as per} ,*,hich, thc period o[ conlract is threc years from the⁽ ate^{of thc} LoA, cxtendablc fltrr^{:r furtherpcriod of 9 months ( n mutual} conscnt, in line, u'ith^{(icM conditrons. lt is stated l)e t ionerhacl} complit:cl with all thc^{[ormalitics lor clearanceof its'ert]r from} Kakinada^{Port to ViTag Port for transporting the blat Ioi1/white}

¶41

oil, as per Lhc requirement and the work orders of the l sr Respondcnt in accordancc with the LOA. i.l. It is stated, the lst Respondent issued petitioner Work Order dated 12.03.2 O2S tor transporting white oil and black oil to coastal and foreign_run vessels stationed at Vizag Port through tankcr barges (small category barges). Under thc re levant Rules and Regulations governing the movemen t of barges, petitioner applied on O3.O3.2O25 for clearance of its Barge from Kakinada port; the said port delayed issuance of clearance. Thereafter, on 12.O3.2025, the lstRespondent issued u.ork ordcr n hich should be folloq,ed by due execution of the prescribcd Contract and issuance of LOA. As Kakinada port was dclaying clcarance, petrtroner re-submitted its Application on 22.03.2025. As there was no response, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8234 of 2O2S and Kakinada port issued clearance. By a n e mail, petitioner informed the lsr Respondent that lts Barge would bc ready in all respects at Vizag port by 27.o3.2025.

¶42

1.2. As per normal practice and procedure rn vogue, the l't Respondent has to fo ow up the said LoA with a written pre:cribed contract and issuance of LOA for transportation of

¶43

¶44

[he oil, pursuant to the said work ordcr. The 1sr Res r rndcnt dicr not get the prescribed contract duly executed by pe-l -ioner and no LOA was issued to pel itioner_ petitioner receiveil an e mail dated 21.03.202.: from the I s, Rcspondent to positio r the Barge within 30 days lrom rhe clatc of LOA i.e by 21.03.!r 25 failing whiCh, the said LOA is liabte for cancellation. A(.( ordrng to petitioner, this communication is illcgal and imperr i ;siblc, as, by 21.O3.2O25, 30 davs did not expire from the date,) the LOA. The lst Rcspondent lailecl to noticc that Fcbruitry h:; only 2g days.

¶45

1.3. Petitioner senr e mail dated 2g.O3.20,)5 nforming that its Barge arrived aL Vizag port on 2g.O3 .2025 ar r is ready for the procedural inspections by the i,r Respondcn, followed by e mail dated 29.03.2025 informing the l"r Respon Lent that survey of its Barge b1t Y izag port \ :as completed anc hat VpT Harbour Craft license rvas also issued b,y the said pr,r t. Again, on O1.O1.2025 at I2.59 hours, by another e mzrjl rll tl_rese aspects were communrcatecl to thc lsr Respondent r r luesting them to issue Letter of Intent for transport:rtion of oil, il , per the sard work order given to petitione r. Howe'er, petitior-re - received an e mail dated 01.04.2025 (at 19.25 hours) from o:: o1 thc

¶46

officials of the^{Ist Respondent stating that as per the earlier} e mail dated^{2l .O3.2O25'the said LOA issued to petitioner} stands cancelled, as,^{by 21.O3.2O25,they did not keep its barge} ready. It referred to^{"Point4 in the Tender conditions" which has} no application at the^{stagcof LOA. The lst Respondentdid not} notice^{that February month has only 28 days and that even 30} days did not expire^{bv 2l -O3.2O25 from the date of LOA whichis} dated 20.02.2025. It failed^{to bear inmind that LOA was} reccived by petitioner^{on 22.O2.2025. In law, under the General} Clauses Act thc^{dar on'"l'hichany communication was received} has to bc excludcd lor computation^{of anype riod pre scribed'}

¶47

1.4. [L is also stated, thc action^{of the lst Respondent in} cancclling thc LOA^{is arbitrary,illegaland is in grossviolationof} thc principles of^{naturaljustice.Challengingthe e mail dated} Ol-O4 2025,^{petilioner hled Writ PetitionNo15O34 of 2025} which vr.as disposecl of on^{07 05-2O25observingthat in view of} thc fact that LOA dated^{2O-O2-2O25issued by the l't} respondent in favour of^{petitionerindicated the period of} contract as thrce I'cars from^{the date of LOA with a clear} stipulation that the said^{period is extendable for a further period} of nine months on^{mutualconsent in line with GeM conditions}

¶48

andthesamehadbeencancelledunilaterallywith()llfollowing the principles^{o[ natural justrce,tl-ris Court u'as olhc opinion} that Respondents^{1 and 2 had acted hastily in dea irg with the} subject^{issueand passed the order impugncd rlr:hanically'} erroneously,^{u'ithout applicationof mind mala 'fir'ttt1-Hence'} tht:l,tRespondentwasdirectedtoreconsidertlrimpugncd decision dated^{01.04.2025, r'r'ithin four wceks fronr thc dateof} the order and^{furtherdirected that till then' no c I rrcit'e steps} shall be taken^{against petitioner and against its Barle'}

¶49

1.5. Pursuant to^{the said direction'petil i I rcr madea} detailed^{representationdated 11 O5-2O25'hou'r"cr' the1st} respondent^{issued the impugned order on 06 06 2i) )'5 cleclining} their request,^{Challengingthe said order' this W-Petitionis} hlcd.

¶50

l'his Court by^{order dated 01 07 2 ) 25' granted} status quo existing^{as on date till filing thc countCt rlfidavit and} the said order^{was cxrendedlrom time lo lime'}

¶51

The 1'r respondcnt^{filed counter stati'l i tl'rat Barge} of petitioner^{^'as atKakinadaPort and \'asr( ( r'rirt d to be} placed at Vizag^{with all Clearancesand Permissiorr;As per the} mail of petitioner^{daLed. 29-03-2025,they inforrn: I that Barge}

¶52

¶53

would be ready in all aspe cts by^{27 -O3-2O25} whereas it^was supposed to be produced for inspection within 30 days of LOA i.e. by 21-03-2025 (both days inclusive). Hence, the contention o[ petitioncr that February has 28 days and 30 days did not expire on 2l-O3-2O25 from the date ol LOA 20-02-2025 is baseless and petitioner is again and again bringing the same into the matter. The fact mentioned in the mail of the petitioner dated 28-03-2025 that their barge has arrived at Visakhapatnam Port and berthed at GREEN CHANNEL berth on 28-03-2025, thereforc the cons[ant repetition by the petitioner that February has 28 days has no significance since 28-03-2025 is well beyond 30 days. Looked from any angle, petitioner could not produce the barge fr,r r inspection u,ithin 3O days. It was also mentioned that thc licenses applied/ submitted by paying all necessary fees and documcnts required for them on l2-O3-2O25 and it is still undcr process. Only on 29-03-2025 afternoon, petitioner had informed that survey by Visakhapatnam port is completed and VPT Harbour craft license is received. LOA clearly states that^'All tender documents including NIT, offer, special terms and conditions of contract, specifications, general description of works and relevant drawings, subsequent

-J

connecte^{I rt'ith thc} negotiatlons^{and all other correspondences} abovereferredtenderincludingthislettershallforrnplrtofthe Work Ordcr/^{Contract" Hence the contentiono[ thtletirroner} that^{point-4 in thete nder conditionsis not applici I Ie zrt thc} stage^{ol the LOA is u'rongand mis-understood'}

¶58

3.1. It is stated'^{the contractwould t:omnr nce afler} workisundertakencomplyingwiththeconditionsllLoAin accordance^{with tender terms and conditionsThc'A ork Order} was issued^{only to acknorl'ledgethe SecurityDe posi' rlrbmittecl'} but the^{contract is deemedLo commence only afteri l;pccLiono[} Barge^{rn'hichis ready tn all aspects Barge\'as suf I osedto bc} produced^{lor inspection ready in a1l aspectsrvithir lO rlavs ol} issuance^{of LOA which petitioner could not doHen: :' L(JA u'as} cancelled-^{It isalso stated' based on thc tlirec'i rn in Writ} Petititrn^{No. 15034 of 2025} '^{opportunity ol personalI e:rringnas} provirled^{to petitioneron 29-OS2025 and' spcal<ir1 orrlcru'as} passcd^{by the competentauthorityon O6=O6-2O2i>'}

¶59

It is stated'^{the entire tendering proces;Ls dotlc in a} 3|2. transparcnt^{manner u'ithin the sctterms I} conditions' Moreover,^{the fact that petitionerseiectionfor plac':ncnt of L()A} r,'as based^{on the higher annualturnover criter z anclhcnce}

¶60

¶61

contrary^{to their own statement of being a small contractor'For} alltheaforesaidreasonS,thisrespondentpraysthatWrit Petition maY^{be dismissed'}

¶62

.4. The^{2"a respondentf rlcd the counter statingthat} Writ Petition^{isnot maintainable as the issues raised are} contractual^{disputes involvingdisputed questionsoffacts'} which cannot^{be decidedin a Writ Petition underArticle 226 of} the constitution^{of India and thc particsbe relegatcd to the civil} Courts of^{competent .l urisd iction t() seck appropriate reliefs'} 4.7. [t is^{stated, t[6]nrr Rcspondcnt is aRegistered} Partnership^{llrmconstitLltccl [or thcpurposcofbunker} transPortatlon and its allied^{actrvitiesand has becn established} in 1997 and since then^{has bccn servingalt itsindustrial} customers^{^,ith qualit]' serviccin the ficld ol Marine/lndustrial} lubricants^{markct operatingancl gained immense expertise and} experience^{in supptying and trading of servo industrialtrade} Iubricants.^{The 1o rcspondentissued tendernotificationand} one day before^{the last date of submission ol bids(thereafter the} last date was^{extended to January, 2025), lhe I"t Respondent} had issued^{a Corrigendum dated 26 12 2024 statingthat in} case of tie at^{L-1 position, GeM shall select the successfulL1}

¶63

¶64

bidder^{through 'systemdetermined vendor selcctionIt lT'as also} addecl that^{in case of tie at other thanL- I position lidrlcr u'ith} the highest^{turnover in any of the last three-vears rr ' submlttcd} against^{turnovcrcriteria shall be considered for sr:]i} 't ior-r ol L- 2 -is also the and L-3^{bidders. In exceptionalcases, where turnort} same, the^{bicl submitted earlier in t'he Portal in t'' ms ol borh} .2 and L.3 date and time,^{shalt be considered for selection ol} bidders. It^{is pe rtinent to mentionthat ClauseNr'} 23 (xxiii) oi the^{'l'cnder Notihcation stated that in case of t ie brt} \ c('n t\'o or more bidders^{atL- 1position,GeM Modzrliti} ; shall bc applicable.^{ll tl're price bid of thc parties is one a nt} lre szrrne , it is meaning thereby^{lhat under the said systtr} ,^r;rndotlh somebody^{would be selected. It is submitted that 1l} c pricc bicls of the fivc^{te chnically-qualihedbidders werc} opcned⁽⁾ⁿ 17.O2.2O25 and^{it wasfoundthat all the fivc h:r' t} quotcd thtr samc price for^{Lot- 1, therefore, all of thcm u'cre;} rou,n zrs L^I and the tendering^{authority had selectcdSu1-'r} :rne Marit-rc Services as L- 1^{as per GeM systemselectionBe: t'r} i I :rs it mzlv, rply of Oil to bearing the na lure^{of work,which requires br-Llkst r} be made at^{VisakhapatnamPort, the notificatir'-} zrlso stated that contract^{wouldalso be awarded to two m()r (} rcrsons whrr

¶65

¶66

are L2^{and L3 in the ratio of 50 : 30 : 20' being L-l: L-2" L-3} respectively^{Accordingly, Petitioner n'as selectedas L-2 and this} Respondent^{has been selectedas L-4 The1't respondentissued} LoA to^{Petitioner on 2O'O2-2O25[t is relevant to mention'} under^{Clause 14 (17)(d) of the Noticc Inviting Tender(NIT)'} bidder^{is required to give an undertakingon notarized1OO/-} Non Judicial^{stamp paper that he shall position the offered} barrage^{ready in all aspec[s along n"ith requiredliccncesu'ithin} 30 days^{of issuance of LOI/LOAaL Yizag PortF-urther' Clause 4} under Condition^{B Requirementsof Barrage of Special Terms&} Conditions^{(STC)/Special Conditiono[Cor]tract(SCC)} specifically^{states that barge should be inspected by IOC or} authorized^{surveyorsand be readyin all aspects lor effecting} bunker^{supplies within 30 days of LOI and that the LOA/LOlis} liabletobecancelledincaseanypartyiailstocomplythesaid condition.^{Therefore,the saidclauses goes to shoq'' that it is a} mandatory^{requirement for thc biddcrs in u'hoselavour LOA has} beenissuedthatthebargeshallbereadyinallaspectsatthe Vizag^{porl within30 daysfromthe date of issuance of LOA'}

¶67

4.2. Though LOA^{was issued on 20 02 '2025} '^Petitioner failed^{to berth the barge within3O days therefrom' thcrefore in}

¶68

¶69

terms of the Condition^{B clause 4 of the STC/SCC. he LOA uas} cancelled and^{the same was communicated to Il titionervide} cmail dated O1.O4.2025-^{Thereafter, LOA datedC)(' )6'2O25r'r'as} issuccl in favour^{of this Respondcntfor carryingo I - thc subjcct} work and requested^{to deposit security depositas l:rthe tendcr} conditions. Accordingly,^{they paid Rs. 12,77,74''-as Bank} ()uarantee for the said u'ork as per the tender concl: 'ions'

¶70

-+.3. As the matter^{stood thus, the prescttJ/rit Petition} czlme to be fited^{q'ith frivolous grounds and vexatirts claim atlcl} thrs Court by order^{dated01.O7.2025 directed totnain[tritr} stutr ls as on thaL^{day. As a result of the same iti:i stated,} respondents have^{been lacingheavypecuniarylos; rs, therefore,} it rs prayed to vacate^{the interim order.}

¶71

The 3'd respondent^{filed counter ttating that} pctitioncr (L2) w'as issued^{LOA on 20.O2.2O25 and 'orked orcler} on 12.O3.2O25 . It^{is stated,L3 was awardedto M/ s Klr. Marine} Scr-vice (2O9to), Letter of^{Acceptance (LOA)v-r sissuedon} 20.O2.2025 and u'ork order^{issued on 12.O3.20253oth L2 and} L3 have not placed their^{barge in Visakhapatnaln)ort and not} obtained any 'No Objection^Certificate' from^{Vis rkhapatnam} Port within rhe stipulated^{time as per TenderNo - ns of Indian}

¶72

¶73

Oil Corporation Limited.^{As such the lst Respondent cancelled} their work orders and^{further allocated the Work of 3Oo/u to L4-} KAN Enterprises^{(RespondentNo.2) and 2Oo/o to L5 Gayatri} Marine Services^{(Respondent No.3) through Letterof Acceptance} dated O6.06.2O25. Subsequently,^{RespondentNo.1 sente mail} on 07.06.2025 to Respondent^{No.3 to submit all necessary} documents along with PBG^{(Performancc Bank Guarantee) &} Security Deposit for a total^{amount of Rs il,5 I} ,I3l l--^Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 submitted all^{documents along u'ith} Performance Bank Guarantee^{& securiq/ depositon 17} '06'2025 and offered Barge^{'VASPARI' for inspectionto Respondent [ndian} Oil Corporation Limited on^20.06.2025.

¶74

5.1. Respondent No. I Officers^{inspccted the bargcon} 23.06.2025 and Respondent^{No.3 has been vvaitinB for orders} and also sent an e mail^{on 2a.O6.2O25requcsLing for allowing} them to commence the^{work allottedand again on O4.O7.2025'} apart from that, a representation^{was submittedon 14.O72025} at IOCL Terminal^Y rzag^{and also a copy of the represcntation} was sent to IOCL Hyderabad Office by^{post on I4.O7 .2025.} Aggrieved by the inaction,^{Respondent No 3preferred Writ} Petition No. 21780 of 2025,^{whereinthis Court by order dated}

¶75

I ..i

¶76

25.O7.2025, disposed of the Writ petition directi:r J respondent authorities to consider reprcsentation dated 13. )7.2025 and after giving a fair opportunity oI hearing to petili rner therein, rr:spondcnt shall pass appropriate orders in accol( ance to law, within four u'eeks from the datc of receipt of a cop.r of this ordcr and communicate the same to petitioner therein.

¶77

5.2. It is stated, while issuing the LOA to Respondenr No.3, Respondcnt No. I mentioned therein that L _ A is subje cr to ourcome of Writ^petition No. 13863 of 2O2S filed 11, M/s K.K. M:lrine Serviccs, and the said Writ pctition was d: posed of bv ordcr daLed 30.06.202S directing respondent a: rhorities to consider representation dated 27.06.2025 and after 3iving a fair opportunity of hearing pass appropriate orders in ac:orda,ce to Iau, rvithin four rveeks from the date of receipt ,) a copy ol Order. It is srated,^petitioner is not a party to Writ )etition No. 13863 of 202.i.^petirioner who is L2 filed this Wrir I etition and Rcspondent No.3 has been made a party in the ;> esent Writ Petition, although rhe Respondent No.3/LS (2O%o ucrk allottee) has bcen allotred the work from a separate compon(r t, whrch is not concerned ri,ith petitioner, and by suppressing t I ; Iacts has

¶78

¶79

got interim stay order, as a result, the Respondent^{No.3 is facing} lots of financial hardshiPs.

¶80

5.3. It is stated, Respondent No.3 is^asuccessful linancial and technical bidder^{and submitted all documen[st<.r} Respondent No. I and also^{furnishedPerformanceBank} Guarantee and Security^{Deposit, even then,RespondenlNo.1} detayed permitting^{Respondent No.3 to start work in pursuance} ol LOA dt.O6.O6.2O25.^{Respondent No.3 had already incurred} Rs.28.OO (Twenty Eight Lakhs)^{for the work, and the same has} been informed to Respondent^{No.1 also. The u'ork originally} a[[otted to Petitioner^{(30%work) was subsequentlyallottcd to} Respondent No.2, but it^{was not allottedto RespondentNo 3'} The alleged component of^{work allotted to Petitioner does not} pertain to Respondent No.3. Even^{then, Petitioner macle them as} a party, by suppressing the^{facts and got stay order. [f at all,} Lhere is any grievance, it ought^{to be against RespondentsI and} 2 and not wit the Respondent No.3.

¶81

5.4. The work component of 2O"k^{allottedto Respondent} No.3 is from a separate component of^{work and nothingto do} u,ith the allegations of Petitioner. Except naming^{GayatriMarine}

--7

Services as Respondent No.3, no specific aliegations are made by Petitioner.

¶86

Petitioner liled reply stating that the impugned order is in vrolation of the orclers in Writ Petition N I 15034 of 2O25 clated O7-O5 2025. In view of this, the cour-r t r aflldavi t fited by the deponent ol the counter afhdavit, is neir rer proper nor permissible. The deponent has no authority to rep r-esent the 1., respondent. It is for lhe competent officer r f the lst respondent to depose and ansurer the averments nLi de in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petitron. lt is for the signatory of thc impugncd order to explain as t l hour the impugned order is in compliance with or in conformtt . with the order dated 07 O5-2O25 in Writ^petition No. 1503 { of 2025. Petitioner rciterated the averments in the Writ Petitiorr

¶87

Petitioner also filed reply to the counter rf the 2"d respondent almost reiterating his case.

¶88

Heard Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senir I Counsel representing Sri S.N. Chidambara Sastry, Iearned r:r unsel for petitioner, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senio:Counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standin ;Counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learrr C Senior

¶89

¶90

Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Avinash^{Reddy,Iearned} counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri^{S. Ravi, learned Senior} Counsel for Sri M,P. Kashyap, learned counsel for^Respondent No.3.

¶91

From a perusal of the material on record, it^is evident that this is the second round of litigation.^{Petitioner has} already approached this Court in Writ Petition^{No. 15034of} 2O25 challenging the e mail dated 21.O2.2O25 at^{I 7.00hours} and e mail dated 01.04.2O25 at 19.25^{hours,cancellingthe LOA} dated 2O.O2.2O25 issued to them on a^{wrong premise} that^by 21.O3.2025,30 days have lapsed from the date^{of LOA making it} liable tor cancellation. This Court^{by order dated 07.O5-2O25,} made the following observations in the said^{Writ Petition:}

¶92

" This court taken into consideration the fact as borne^on record that the prayer sought for by the^{petitioner herernin} W.P.No.8234/2025 on the file of the A.P. High Court and^{the praver} sought for in the present writ petition i.e.^{W.P.No. 15034} /2025^{on the} file of the Telangana High Court^being different^{from each otheropines} that thc^present rvrit petition is maintainable^{as per Clause22.7(b) ol} the notice inviting tender.

¶93

This Court opines that even though the^{date of [,OA issued} to the petitioncr is dated 2O-O2-2O25,^{facl remains} that^{admittedll',the} u,ork order issued to the petitioner is only on^{l2-O3 2025 andthe} petitioner admittedly can commence his work only after^{receiptof the} work order from the lst respondent and not earlier^{than that, and}

¶94

¶95

therefore this court opines that the action of the 1st ancl 2nd Respondents irr cancelling the u,ork order on the ground tha petitioner failed to offer the barge for inspection by IOC/lOC ruthorised lndependent Surveyors ready in all respects for effectrn a^bllnkers supplies before the due date 2l-O3 2025 r.e. within 30 da\ i from the datc of LOA is not onl], arbitrarl., rvhimsical, mechanical bu tlso highly unreasonable, unfair and unJust".

¶96

c) "lt is also borne on record and even adm t ed b-v the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respor lents that admittedly, prior to the issuance of the Lmpugned proceedinr!r of the 1st and 2nd respondents dtd.O1-04 2025 communicated by e r .ail to the pefitroner inlorming the petitioner that its LOA (1td.2o O2_,2o,. 5 and the rvork order stands cancelled, the petitioner was not provir t I\,ith an opportunit-of personal hearing and admittedly, as borne oit -ecord, no specihc Shor.v Cause notice u,as issuerl to Ihe petitioner ini rming the petitioner about the proposed actron contemplated by the rcs F )ndents I and 2 and lurther calling for cxplanation from the petitioner d)^'Thrs court opines that in vieu,of the fact as borne on recor I that the LOA dtd 2O-O2 2025 issued b1, the 1st respondcnt in fa,r ur of the petitioner indicated the period of contract as three years from re date of the LOA with a u,ith a further clear stipulation that the sa. period is exten.lable lor a further period of nine months on mutual cons rnt ir.r line with GeM conditions and the same had been cancelled r r ilaterallv without even providing an opportuntt\ of personal hear r g to the petitioner and without issuing a prior sho!, cause notice int:r ating the petitioner about the proposed cancelation ol LOA by the respc r Cent nos. l and 2 alrd calling for explanations from the petitioncr- s )cci[ically referring to the grounds on rhich the said action was pro) sed, this court opines that the rcspondents I and 2 had acted hastill -1 dealing with the subject issue an.l had passed the order rrpugned mechanicallv, erroneously, q,ithout applrcation of mind, malaf ( ely-,,

¶97

It is submitted that with the above conclusions 1 Hon,ble court, 'in the light of the discussion, reasoning and conclusi( I s arnved

¶98

Itt

¶99

at paras^{I lo 12'of its order disposed of the saidwrit Petition' inter alia} directing^{the1stRcspondent to re consider the impugned decisionof the} 1st and 2nd^{Respondents, dated 01 04 2025 communicatedby emarlto} the petitioner, informing^{the petitionerthat its LOA dated20'O22025} and the work^{order stands cancelled, in accordancervtthla^' " "}

¶100

Having considered the^{respective contentionsand} perllsed the record, it^{is to be noted that undisputedlyLOA was} issued on 20 .O2.2O25,^{however, the actual work orderwas} issued only on^{12.O3.2O25,and u'hen respondent-authorities} cancelled thc^{cotltract on the ground of delay in readyingthe} barge b-v^{petilioncr(u'hich is supposedto be within 30 days} from the date o[^{LOA), this Court has held that work order} having been issued^{otl 12.O3.2025' cancellationof contracton} 21.O3.2025^{(i.e., u'ithin 10 days) isarbitrary, and illegal;} therefore, directed^{the authoritiesto reconsiderthe decision'} The said order^{has become final.}

¶101

11 However, iI is curious^{to note thatrespondent-} authorities, after^{the allegedre- considerationof} the earlier cancellation decision,^{has once again passedthe impugned} order upholding their^{previous decisionof cancellationon the} very same^{ground of detay in readying the bargewithin 30 days} period. A perusal of the^{impugnedorder would not reveal any}

¶102

¶103

other legally-tenable ground, except reiterating tl- c vory samc stand of delay that has already been adjudicated r rd zrnswerecl in the earlier Writ petition. At thc cost o[ repetrtio: , this Court notes that LOA n a s dated 20 .O2 .2025 and r I : pcriod ol calculation adoptecl under LOA is in "da1,s,, anrl l rl ..rnonths,,, therefore, when the period of readying the bargr: rs specified as "30 days", calculation of 30 days commencing fr<nc. ,tO.O2.2025 would end b1 22.O3.2025. Therefcrre, evcn ol1 tlt: calc:ulzrtion aspect, the in'rpugnecl order is liable to be set asick: 12. Further, u,hen once this Court has acir t<iicated Lhe earlier canccllation on thc grour-rd of dclay zrs rllcgal and arbitrary, with a further direction to reconsider Ic dt:cision, duly giving petitioner an opportunity of hearing, rl c :rction of the responden t-authoritv in cancelling thc c()rr I rct of thc petitioner on the very same ground of dela' is a blerri rt vioration of the order of this Court. It is also not the case o tspondent authorities that petirioner is not tech nically-comp(,1( tt and has no wherewithal to provide/ready the barge within I stipulated time. In that vier,", of Lhe matter, thc impugned ordc - is liable to be set aside.

¶104

¶105

Coming to the aspect of rnaintainability, learned Senior Counsel Sri G. Vidyasagar contends on behalf of the 2"4 respondent that in matters of contracts / tenders, even if Courts find that there is total arbitrariness, still Courts should refrain from interfering and instead relegate the parties to seek damage and that the attempts by persons / hrms such as petitioner with imaginary grievances u,ounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out o[ molehills of some technical / procedural violation shoulcl be resisted. Therefore, balance of convcnience is in favour of the 2nd respondent. In support of his contention, learned Scnior Counsel relied on the renowncd judgment on lhe subject of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.G.Projects Limited v. Vinod. Kumar Jctnr, wherein, it has been held at para 23 as under:

¶106

" [n vieu'of the atxrr,,e judgments of this Court, thc \vrit court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to \ri,hether or nol to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examinc the terms and conditions of the present da-v economic activitics of thc State and this limitation should be kept in vie\a - Courts should be even more reluctant in interfenng \a,ith contracts involving technical lssues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issucs. The approach of the Court should be not to find tault with magnif\ ing glass in its hands,

¶107

'^{(20:l)6 scc t:z}

¶108

¶109

rather the Court should e xamine as to whether ttre der r ion making process is after complying $.rth the procedure contenrr)l rted bv the ten(ler condltrons. tf the Court finds that there is total iLr^r Lrariness oT that the tender has been grante(l in a mala fide manner, :r ll the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender l)utⁱⁿ i ]ad^r(-'legate the partres to seek damages for the wrongful exclusiorr rii-rer []ran to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or^{itrl :rference} in the tender Ieads to additional^(:osts on the State and Ls lso against pubhc interest. Therefore, the State and its citrzens sufter \'ice, firstly b1, paying escalation costs and secondly, by being^{delrr rcd} of^th<: inlrastructure for which the present day Governmertts ar expected^to rvork.^"

¶110

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ve<lt L a Srinivzrs appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent also rr lied on thc judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdis:l Ma-nd.al u. State oJ Orissa2 dnd Agmdtel India (P) Ltd.. t,. Resoursgrs Telecotn3. He contends that when the powcr of .itL, icial rcview is invoked in matters relating to tenders or arvarrl⁽ f contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. ,r colttract is a commercial transaction. trvaluating tendcrs a r I awardirrg con[racts are essentially commercial functions. t rinciplcs of equitv and natural^justice stay at a distance. [l t] e decision relating to award o[ contract is bono ftde ancl i; in^public interc's[, courts will not, in exercise of powe r oI^jr-r,l cial rcvicrv,

t (:oor) r.t scc s r

'1:ozzr^{s scc s6z}

))

interfere even if a procedural abcrration or error in^assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is^made out.^{The powerof judicial} review will noL be permitted lo be invoked to^{protectprivate} interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. Thc tenderer or contractor with a^grievance can always seek damages in a civil Court. He also submitted that^a Court before interfering in tender or contractual mattersⁱⁿ exercise of power of^judicial rcvieu', should^pose to itself the following questions: i) whether thc process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intendcd lo favour someone; ii) whcther public interest is affected. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the tcchnical cvaluation or comparison try the Court is impermissible, ancl even if the interpretation given to the tender document by thc person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering rvilh the interpretation given.

¶115

In the light of thc above submissions, it is to be noted that though this Courl does not sit in^judicial review in contractual matters, for the rcason that responden t-authorities requiring exccution of a certain^work are^better equipped^to

¶116

I I

¶117

determine and prescribe the eligibility conc i ions and qualifications lor a contractor to participate in r particular tender/contract and execute a given task under t I i co n trac t. Hou,evcr, in case of any alleged irregularities in rI t tcndc:ring process itself, or in providing equal opportunily as 1r, r larv w,ilh regard to participation in the tendering process, or rr observing the principles o[ natural justice, the powers of thi; Corlrt are broad and it can entertain a Writ petition to stril<r, rlrtu'n anr' such ille gal action.

¶118

In this context, it is to be noted that rr t hrs Writ Pctition, this Court is not sitting in de termining the icibilit_v oI petitioner per se to execute the work issued under thr l-()A; and admittedly, work order was issued to petiti ) lcr after determining his eligibility. However, the same was c;l rcclk:d on the ground of delay in readying the barge for inspec rn (r,v[rich n as already adjudicated in an earlier wril petition z r cl held ro be illegal). Therefore, the action o[ the respondenl irL Lhor-itv in passing the impugned Order, cancelling the col I act is a mechanical exercise and the impugned Order herein ry Ls perssed rvithout application of mind and in violation of rl :l Orders passed by this Court in Writ petition No.15034 of 20)i . u,hcrein

¶119

¶120

it was specihcally^{held that cancellation of contractof petitioner} on the^{ground of delay was iliegal as the 3O-dayperiod has not} expired. Further,^{this Courthas also considered the aspect that} LOA was dated 20.02.2025^{and the Work Order was dated} 12.03.2025, and the^{cancellation was dated 2l'O3'2O25,and} after adjudicating the^{issue, held that such cancellation was} illegal and therefore,^{the decisionrequires reconsideration'}

¶121

17 - Ho$/ever, ir-rterestingly,^{the respondcnt authorities} quote the very same^{ground of delay inreadying the barge} within 3O days and again^{passedthe sameorder of cancellation} of tender by way of^{the impugnedorder' Therefore,the} impugned order^{is liable to be set aside Further,the contention} of learned Senior^{Counselfor RespondentNo 2 that their client} has been performing^{the contract consequentto cancellation of} tender of^{petitioner,and that lhere are interimorders (status} quo) in their favour,^{cannot be counlenanced,lor the reason} that the very cancellation^{of contract of petitioner is illegal,and} further they cannot^{claim equities on the basis of stotusquo} orders passed^{bY this Court.}

¶122

Insofar as^{RespondentNo 3 isconcerned, the} essential contention^{is that petitioner was awarded3O%o of}

¶123

¶124

contractual u,ork and later Respondent No.3 was iwarded 20% of u,ork and there is no overlap between the vvor :s allotted to petitioner an<i Respondent No.3. This specific srri mission has not been disputed by petitioner. 19. This Court desires to place on record i _r displeasure ovcr the manner in which Respondent _ Indian ()il Corporation passed the impugned order. The Corporatio _r being an instrumentalit-r. of rhe State under Article 12 of thc : rnstitution, is bouncl undcr u.rir jurisdiction and to comply wirl the orders of this Court. It is unexpected from the Corporat rn to have passed the impugned proceedings again on the ver]' same ground that has already been held as untenable i.t an earlier Writ^pctition.

¶125

The Writ petition is therefore, allow,ed. s : ting asidc the impugnecl proceedings dated 06.06.2025. The 1st respondcnt is d irccl ccl to take all the necessary corl equential action to issue thc rcquired proceedings permitting p _. itioner to carry. on its con tractua I obligations as per LOA and ,l rrk ordcr issued as expeditious.ly as possible, preferably withirr t vo q,eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cosr r

¶126

¶127