Delhi High Court
Dezhou Shengli Pipeline Crossing ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & ... on 21 October, 2019
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.10.2019
+ W.P.(C) 11230/2019
DEZHOU SHENGLI PIPELINE CROSSING ENGINEERING
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Raman Gandhi,
Mr.Aditya Mishra & Ms.
Akansha Jain, Advs.
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Narayan, Ms. Mala
Narayan, Mr. Shashwat Goel &
Mr. Digvijay, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 46210/2019 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 11230/2019 page 1 of 3
W.P.(C) 11230/2019 & CM APPL. No. 46209/2019 (stay)
1. The petitioner has challenged an E-tender issued on 24.09.2019
from Rajkot in respect of sites in the State of Maharashtra, for work,
which the petitioner contends, already stands awarded to the petitioner
through a contract duly executed between the parties (hereinafter
referred to as the 'earlier tender').
2. Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that earlier tender was invited for execution of works in the
State of Gujarat and Maharashtra to lay oil pipelines below river beds.
A letter of acceptance was issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner
on 15.06.2018. The works were to be executed at 15 sites, 8 of which
are situate in the State of Gujarat and 7 sites are situate in the State of
Maharashtra.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that it has completed almost the
entire work in the State of Gujarat, except at two sites where 50% and
80% of the work stands completed. However for the sites in the State
of Maharashtra, respondent No. 1 has yet not been able to release
work fronts/Right of Way for 5 sites and work fronts for only one site
has been released recently on 10.10.2019.
4. The fear that the work would be re-awarded for sites which are
subject matter of the earlier tender has led to the filing of the present
writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 11230/2019 page 2 of 3
5. Additionally, Mr. Batra contends that neither any show cause
notice for cancellation has never been issued to the petitioner nor any
cancellation order has been made.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, who enters appearance on
advance copy, refutes the submissions made by learned senior counsel
for the petitioner but admits, on instructions, that the contract of the
petitioner has neither been determined nor any show cause notice has
been issued. However, counsel for the respondents submits that this
tender has been issued in anticipation, should the petitioner not
complete his work within the time allowed and to obviate any delay in
awarding a contract to have any remaining work completed at the
earliest. He submits that a second contract shall not be awarded till the
due process is followed ; and in case the earlier contract with the
petitioner is to be determined, a show cause notice will be given and
an appropriate order will be passed.
7. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the
respondents, as prayed, the present writ petition is disposed of,
binding the respondents to the stand taken by them in court.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
OCTOBER 21, 2019/uj
W.P.(C) No. 11230/2019 page 3 of 3
