Delhi High Court
Bajrang International & Ors. vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ... on 2 November, 2015
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 16th October, 2015
Judgment delivered on: 02nd November, 2015
CM No. 23198/2015 in W.P.(C) 964/2015
Bajrang International & ors. ..... Petitioners
versus
Indian Oil Corporation ltd. (IOCL) & ors. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. with Mr Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr Rajat Navel, Advocate for R-1 & 2
Mr Rikesh Singh and Mr Nakul Pathania for R-3
Mr Anukul Raj and Mr Rahul Shukla, Advocates for R-70 & 85
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. The Respondent No. 3 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation of
India Limited (HPCL for short) has filed the present application
seeking clarification of the Judgment dated 24.09.2015 whereby the
Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to strictly
adhere to the tender conditions including Clause 11(a) (x) and further
to disqualify the tanks trucks offered by the bidders that were not
fitted with Internal Excess Flow Check Valve (IEFC Valve) as on the
bid submission/upload closing date (i.e. 22.09.2014). The Respondent
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were further directed to revise the rankings by
eliminating the tank trucks that were not fitted with IEFC Valves as
on the bid submission/upload closing date and to issue the LOI/work
order only after revision of the said ranking to the tank trucks offered
that had the IEFC valve fitted as on the bid submission/upload closing
date.
2. It is submitted that this court by interim order dated 05.02.2015,
had directed that those tank trucks which did not have the IEFC Valve
fitted as on 22.09.2014, shall not be taken up for further consideration.
It was further directed that even in those cases, where letters of intent
had been issued, the final work order should not be issued till further
orders from this court.
3. It is contended by HPCL that on 19.05.2015, it had submitted
before this court that it caters to 3/4th of the total supply in Jammu and
Kashmir. It was contended that on account of stalling of issuance of
LOI's in terms of the interim order dated 05.02.2015, there was a
shortage of 57 tank trucks of 12 MT specially meant for plying in the
province of Jammu and Kashmir and the stocks over there were
draining out and the shortage of supply of LPG would find a reflection
on the lives of the residents who were already suffering on account of
natural calamity of flood and landslide.
4. Considering the submission of the HPCL, and the fact that none
of the petitioners objected to the relaxation being made in the interim
orders, this court on 19.05.2015 directed, that HPCL may award
contracts to tank trucks of 12 MT capacity provided that they had
IEFC valve fitted as on that date in respect of supplies made to Jammu
and Kashmir.
5. By the present application, it is contended by HPCL that out of
the requirement of 175 tank trucks of 12 MT for Jammu and Kashmir
region, 118 tank trucks had IEFC valve fitted as on bid submission
date and were issued the LOI in terms of the order dated 05.02.2015
and 57 tank trucks were issued LOI pursuant to relaxation granted by
order dated 19.05.2015. It is submitted that out of the remaining
bidders who were not issued any LOI, there are only 12 bidders who
fulfil the requirement of having the IEFC valve fitted as on bid
submission date. It is submitted that, if the directions issued by this
court by the judgment dated 24.09.2015 were to be made applicable to
the tank trucks of 12 MT capacity for Jammu and Kashmir region,
then these 57 tank trucks inducted in terms of the relaxation granted
on 19.05.2015 would have to be recalled which would once again lead
to scarcity. Clarification is thus sought as to how to deal with the 57
tank trucks that had been permitted by order dated 19.05.2015.
6. We may also note that after the tender was issued, there is
requirement of additional tank trucks over and above the quoted
number as per the tender. This fact has emerged from the filing of
other writ petitions by the bidders who, even though eligible in terms
of our judgment dated 24.09.2015, could not be awarded LOI on
account of being lower in ranking.
7. Keeping in view the fact that the 57 tank trucks of 12 MT
capacity, which get displaced by our order dated 24.09.2015, were
permitted by order dated 19.05.2015 in view of the peculiar
circumstances of the Jammu and Kashmir region and also in view of
the fact that there was no opposition to grant of the relaxation, we
would not like to disturb them at this stage. Further, there is
requirement of additional tank trucks and only 12 out of the remaining
bidders satisfy the requirement of having the IEFC valve fitted as on
bid closing date.
8. In view of the above, the application is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) the 12 tank trucks of 12 MT capacity, that satisfy the
requirement of having the IEFC Valve fitted as on bid
closing date but have not been awarded the LOI, would
be ranked immediately after the 118 tank trucks that were
awarded the LOI in terms of the interim order dated
05.02.2015 and would be awarded the contract; and
(ii) the 57 tank trucks of 12 MT capacity which were
awarded the contract in terms of the relaxation granted on
19.05.2015 would also be permitted to continue in the
Jammu and Kashmir region; and
(iii) the 12 tank trucks that would have become surplus, on
account of adjustment of 12 tank trucks in terms of (i)
above, would be adjusted in the additional requirement of
tank trucks of 12 MT capacity for the Jammu and
Kashmir region.
(iv) It is made clear that these directions apply only in respect
of tank trucks of 12 MT capacity for the region of Jammu
and Kashmir hired by HPCL.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
November 02, 2015
HJ
