Delhi High Court
Sunny Aggarwal vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 21 January, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.01.2015
+ W.P.(C) 629/2015
SUNNY AGGARWAL ... Petitioner
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Mr S. C. Singhal
For the Respondent : Mr Rajat Navet
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 1083/2015
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 629/2015 & CM 1084/2015
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a transporter and has one tank
truck registered in U.P, has sought, inter alia, the following prayer:-
"(b) thereafter by issuance of appropriate writs or directions the
Respondent be directed to consider the vehicles of the States as
mentioned in the tender in preference to the tenders quoted for
the vehicles having the registration number of other States and
thereafter they be further directed not to issue letter of intent to
such tenders who have quoted the vehicles of other States which
are not mentioned in the tender till requisite number is achieved
out of the States as mentioned in clause 11(d) of the tender."
2. A notice inviting e-tender was issued, inter alia, by the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL) in September, 2014. The NIT number was
LPG/LOGS/TT/NR/2014/A. As per the NIT, the tenders were to be downloaded
from 01.09.2014 to 22.09.2014. The bid submission / upload closing date was
specified as 22.09.2014 at 1300 hours.
3. There is no dispute that the petitioner participated in the said e-tender. It
is also not disputed that the petitioner was eligible to bid and that he was
technically qualified to do so. The grievance of the petitioner, as referred to in
the prayer clause extracted above, is with clause 11(d) of the general terms and
conditions of the tender for transportation of bulk LPG by road. The said clause
11(d) reads as under:-
"(d) Contracting Corporations will have requirements for
specific State wise Registered tank trucks in the following
States:
Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Maharashtra,
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka, Rajasthah, Punjab, Assam, J&K, Orissa, Chattisgarh,
Himachal Pradesh, Goa, Jharkhand, Uttranchal and Kerala. In
case sufficient numbers for this specific requirement is not
available, the successful bidder at the advice of Contracting
Corporation shall arrange to change the Registration number at
their own cost as directed by Contracting Corporation within one
month of such request. Failure to do so would be treated as
breach of contract and action as per the terms and conditions of
the contract would be taken."
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trucks registered in
Nagaland cannot be considered unless and until the numbers required are not
satisfied by the tank trucks offered, which are registered in the States mentioned
in clause 11(d).
5. The learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to clause 4
(iii)(b) of the said general conditions. The said clause reads as under:-
"4(iii) Allocation of tank trucks (Applicable for tenders having
Price Band in Price -- Bid only): In case of bidders quoting rates,
which is floor price i.e. at the bottom. of the price band for all
sectors and there is same financial outgo, then allocation of Tank
Trucks (TTs) to such bidders will be as under :
a. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
b. In case quoted tank trucks are more than the
requirement, then TTs in order of latest model (from
date of first registration as mentioned in table ii .b above
in respect of individual Tank Truck) will be allocated to
the bidders till the TT requirement is fulfilled .
c. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
d. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
e. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
f. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
g. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
h. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
i. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
j. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"
6. As per the learned counsel for the respondent, the tank trucks have to be of
the latest model and they would be given preference over tank trucks which have
older dates of first registration. The learned counsel for the respondent also
submitted that there was a requirement of 1513 tank trucks for the North India
region for IOC. He submitted that 2362 trucks were found to be technically
qualified. Therefore, the requirement was far less than the supply that was
forthcoming. In order to select the 1513 tank trucks, the criteria of clause
4(iii)(b) had to be adopted as per the general conditions. This required ranking of
all the tank trucks according to the date of first registration. When the trucks
were so ranked, the petitioner's tank truck did not fall within the 1513 tank trucks
which were to be selected. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted
that the letters of intent have already been issued in respect of the 1513 tank
trucks, excluding some tank trucks which are the subject matter of a writ petition
being WP(C) 8435/2014.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the list of 1513 tank
trucks prepared by the respondent included about 450 trucks which were
registered in Nagaland. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner these
450 tank trucks have to be excluded while considering the question of successful
bidders.
8. We do not agree with the interpretation that is sought to be placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner on clause 11(d) of the said general conditions.
We find that successful bidders are to be selected on the criteria mentioned in
clause 4(iii)(b) and which is to rank tank trucks in order of preference according
to the date of first registration. The newer models are to be preferred to the older
models. After that list is prepared, the provisions of clause 11(d) of the said
general conditions are to be worked out, if so required. We do not read any
prohibition in clause 11(d) so as to eliminate tank trucks registered in Nagaland
or to give preference to the tank trucks registered in the States mentioned in
clause 11(d) for the purposes of determining the successful bidders.
9. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JANUARY 21, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR
