Parecattil Transports vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 7969 Ker

Kerala High Court

Parecattil Transports vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 16 April, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                    2025:KER:32482
W.P(C) No.1108 of 2025       1
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 1108 OF 2025

PETITIONERS:
    1     PARECATTIL TRANSPORTS
          REP BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER RIMAL VAKKACHAN
          B NO 13/384A THURAVOOR PO, ANGAMALY ERNAKULAM,
          PIN - 683572
    2     PETRO FUEL LOGISTICS
          REP BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER JOY PAUL ROOM NO
          7/73A NEDUMBASSERY PANCHAYATH ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O
          ERNAKUAM, PIN - 683573
          BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
          SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
          SRI.ASIF N


RESPONDENTS:
    1     BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
          REP BY IT'S GENERAL MANAGER-OPS-I/C RETAIL
          IRIMPANAM BPCL IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION (1301)
          IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD
          IRIMPANAM PO ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682309.
    2     BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
          REP BY IT'S PROCUREMENT MANAGER (CPO MKTG.),
          GROUP-10 CPO-M , SEWREE FORT ROAD, SEWREE(EAST)
          MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400015.
          BY ADVS. SRI.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M.
          SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
          SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
          SRI.KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
          SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
          SRI.RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
          SRI.BENNY P THOMAS, SC
          SMT.RAMOLA NAYANAPALLY, SC
      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON   08.04.2025,   THE   COURT   ON    16.04.2025   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:32482
W.P(C) No.1108 of 2025           2



                           C.S.DIAS,J
           -------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No.1108 of 2025
           -------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 16th day of April, 2025


                           JUDGMENT

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ― the

respondents ― had published Ext.P1 tender notification inviting

tenders for 229 TOP loading tanker lorries ('lorries', in short) for

road transportation of bulk petroleum products from their

Irumpanam Installation to various locations within and outside

the State of Kerala for a period of 5 years. In Ext.P1 notification,

reservation is given to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribe communities, and the Micro and Small

Enterprise (MSE) category. Within the MSE-Category, there is

an additional reservation for SC, ST and women. Under Clause

11.0 of the Ext.P1 notification, 25% of the lorries, i.e. 58 lorries,

are reserved for the MSE-Category, out of which ten lorries are

reserved for MSE-SC/ST, seven lorries for MSE-Women and 2025:KER:32482

forty-one lorries for MSE-Others. In response to Ext.P1

notification, the petitioners submitted their bids. The 1 st petitioner

offered four lorries, and the 2nd petitioner offered eleven

lorries. Although under Ext.P1 notification, seven lorries were

reserved for the MSE-Women category, only five lorries were

allotted under the said category. Therefore, the total lorries for

the MSE-Others category increased by two, i.e., 43

lorries. Seventeen bidders participated in the tender under the

MSE-Others category. However, the 1st respondent allotted only

one lorry each for all the seventeen bidders under the MSE-

Others category, and the remaining 27 lorries were allocated to

other bidders who offered the latest model lorries, as per the

choice of the respondents. The sub-classification of the lorries

based on age is arbitrary and has defeated the object of the

principle of the reservation under the Micro, Small and Medium

Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Hence, the 1st respondent

is to be directed to equally allocate the 27 lorries to all the 17

tenderers dehors the age of the lorries.

2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit

refuting the averments in the writ petition. They have contended 2025:KER:32482

that an alternative mechanism is provided under Clause 32 of

Ext.P1 notification. Moreover, the writ petition is bad for the non-

joinder of the necessary parties because the petitioners have

not impleaded the 18 technically qualified bidders. As per Ext.P1

tender notification, the total requirement of lorries was 189

12KL/14KL capacity lorries and 40 20KL/24KL capacity lorries

viz., a total of 229 lorries. The tender was finalised, and letters

of intent were issued to the successful tenderers on 27.12.2024,

who had executed the agreements with the respondents. The

lorries are operational, and the tender stands are closed.The

allotment procedure was clearly explained to all the bidders in

the pre-bid meeting, evident from Ext.R1 (a) minutes. Ext.P1

tender was a two-bid system ― the technical and price

bids. Seventy-nine bids were received in response to Ext.P1

notification. However, 13 bidders were not technically qualified.

Of the remaining 66 technically qualified bidders, all quoted at

the floor price, that is -5% of the benchmark rate. Based on the

lorries offered, 47 bidders, including the petitioners, have been

allocated lorries/booking slips.Regarding the allotment to the

MSE-Others/ MSE-General category, there were 18 technically 2025:KER:32482

qualified bidders. As per Clause 11.1 of Ext.P1, tentatively, 41

lorries are reserved for allocation to the MSE-Others category.

3% of the total number of lorries is reserved for the MSE-

Women category.In the present tender, a balance of two lorries

from the MSE-Women category was allotted to the MSE-Others

category. Thus, 43 lorries were eligible for allotment under the

MSE-Others. As per Clause 26.10 of Ext.P1 notification, each

MSE bidder would be allocated one offered lorry of the latest

model. Similarly, Clause 26.5 of Ext.P1 notification specifically

provides that if the lorries offered are more than the required

number, then the lorries would be allocated based on the lowest

age of the lorries. It is in the said circumstances that the 18

bidders were allotted 18 lorries as per Clause 26.10, after that,

the lorries were allotted within the MSE category based on their

age. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the allotment of the

lorries. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

3. Heard; Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for

the petitioners and the Smt.Ramola Nayanpally, the learned

counsel for the respondents.

2025:KER:32482

4. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the

allotment of the lorries to persons in the MSE-Others category. It

is undisputed that 18 bidders participated in the tender under

the above category, and 43 lorries were reserved for the said

category.

5. The petitioners contend that as per Clause 26.10 of

Ext.P1 notification, 43 lorries have to be equally distributed

among the 18 bidders. On the contrary, the respondents

contend that, after allocating one lorry for each of the 18

bidders, the residue is to be allocated as per clause 26.5 of

Ext.P1 notification based on the lowest age of the lorries.

6. In view of the rival contentions, it is apposite to refer

to Clauses 26.0, 26.5 (a) to (e) and 26.10 of Ext.P1 tender

notification, which reads as follows:

"26.0 Tank Lorry Allocation Criteria.

Tank Lorry allocation shall be done Tank Lorry capacity-wise.

Category wise allocation as per reservation criteria for SC, ST, MSE SC/ST, MSE Women, MSE Others shall be done at over-all Tender level."

"26.5 In case, for a particular ranking, if the tank-lorries offered are more than the requirement then the tank-lorries will be allocated capacity wise based on the following order of priority: -

a)The offered TLs of standard sizes will be accorded first preference.

b) Owned TLs offered shall be considered for allocation subject to 2025:KER:32482

maximum allocation per tenderer not exceeding 25% of the total tender requirement. For this evaluation of 25%, the lowest age Tank Lorries offered by each tenderer shall be considered.

c) In case the number of shortlisted TLs as a) & b) above is more than the requirement, then tank lorries shall be allocated based on lower age of the tank lorries.

d) In case the number of shortlisted TLs as a) to c) above, is less than the total requirements, then Owned TLs offered by tenderers in excess of 25% of total tender requirement shall be considered to meet the balance requirements following priority to lower age tank lorries.

e) In case requirement of tank lorries is not met with above a) to

d), then owned non-standard Tank lorries already plying in the location and offered by tenderers not exceeding 25% shall be considered for allocation with priority to lower age tank lorries till the total tender requirement is fulfilled.**** **** *****"

"26.10 -: MSE Bidder TL clause-: Each MSE Bidder will be allocated one offered Tank lorry each of latest model i.e., lowest in age and reservation quota will be filled as per allocation criteria. If number of bidders is more than the number of Tank lorries reserved for the MSE categories and it is not possible to allocate even one Tank lorry to each bidder, then one Tank lorry of latest model, i.e., lowest age will be allocated to bidders under respective MSE categories as per allocation criteria till the reservation quota of the MSE categories is fulfilled.

Balance Tank lorries left out after filling the reservation quotas will be considered for allocation as per the original ranking and at par with other bidders (other than MSE/SC/ST)."

7. Clause 26.10, extracted above, unambiguously

substantiates that each MSE bidder would be allotted one lorry

of the latest model, which is the youngest in age, and the

reservation quota will be filled as per allocation

criteria. Likewise, Clause 26.5 (c) explicitly states that if the 2025:KER:32482

shortlisted lorries are above the requirement, then the lorries will

be allocated based on the lower age of the lorries.

8. In the case at hand, it is undisputed that for the 43

lorries under the MSE-Others category, more tenders for more

lorries were received. It was in the said circumstances that the

respondents fell back on Clause 26.5 (c) by allocating one lorry

each to the 18 bidders based on the lowest age of the lorry

offered by them. It is the remaining 25 lorries that the

respondents allocated as per Clause 26.5 (c) within the MSE-

Others category based on the lowest age of the lorry. The

petitioners have no case that the respondents have allocated

the 25 lorries to the general category bidders. Therefore, the

contention that the allocation violates the provisions of the

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, is

untenable.

9. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others

[(2007) 14 SCC 517], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed

that evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially

commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice

stay at a distance. If the decision relating to the award of the 2025:KER:32482

contract is bona fide and is in the public interest, courts will not,

in exercising the power of judicial review, interfere even if a

procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a

tenderer is made out.

10. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Nagpur Metro Rail

Corporation Ltd. And Another [(2016) 16 SCC 818], the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the constitutional Courts

must defer to the understanding that the employer of a project

having authored the tender documents, is the best person to

understand and appreciate the requirements and interpret the

documents unless there is mala fides or perversity in the

understanding or applying the terms of the tender conditions. It

is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an

interpretation to the tender documents that are not acceptable to

the constitutional Courts, but that by itself is not a reason for

interfering with the interpretation given.

11. Likewise, in Silppi Constructions Contractors v.

Union of India and another [(2020) 16 SCC 489], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that the authority which floats the 2025:KER:32482

contract or tender and has authored the tender documents is the

best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If

two interpretations are possible, then the author's interpretation

is to be accepted.

On an overall consideration of the facts and the

materials on record, particularly the explicit conditions in Ext.P1

tender, which permits the respondents to allocate the lorries

above the number of eligible participating bidders under the

MSE-Others category, to the eligible bidders based on age of

the lorries as as per the criteria mentioned in Clause 26.5(c), I

do not find any legality or arbitrariness on the part of the

respondents in allocating the trucks within the MSE others

category based on the age of the lorries. After accepting the

terms and conditions in Ext.P1 notification and participating in

the tender with both eyes wide open, the petitioners cannot take

a volte-face and contend that all 43 lorries must be allocated

equally among the 18 MSE-Other category bidders. The

petitioners are estopped from taking such a stand. The writ

petition lacks any merits and is only to be dismissed.

2025:KER:32482

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB 2025:KER:32482

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1108/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF TENDER NOTIFICATION NO BPCL/RETAIL/POL/BULK/IRIMPANAM/2024-29 ISSUED FOR BPCL IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION DT 19/06/2024

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 26.06.2024

EXHIBIT R1 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 23.01.2025