Rajputana Transport Company vs Indian Oil Corporation Limtied
2023 Latest Caselaw 8357 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32318-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR



                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 790/2023




 Rajputana Transport Company, Through Its Proprietor Bhanwar
 Singh Champawat S/o Shri Malam Singh Champawat, Aged
 About 41 Years, R/o 56, Shiv Colony, Shikargarh, District
 Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus


 1.      Indian Oil Corporation Limtied, Through Its Nodal
         Officer, Rajasthan State Office, Indian Oil Bhavan,
         Adarsh Nagar Road, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur,
         Rajasthan 302004.

 2.      The Deputy General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation
         Limited, Jodhpur Terminal, Jodhpur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Rituraj Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s)             :    Mr.  Nishant     Bora,   Mr.   Mukesh
                                   Rajpuorhit, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

                             Judgment / Order

11/10/2023


BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Vijay Bishnoi, J.)

The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the

appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 18.9.2023 passed

by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.18484/2022, whereby

[2023:RJ-JD:32318-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-790/2023]

the learned Single Judge has dismissed the above-referred writ

petition.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a proprietor

firm, had submitted its bid in response to the NIT (Annexure/1 of

the writ petition) issued by the respondent-IOCL for road

transportation of bulk petroleum products by tank trucks. The bid

of the appellant was rejected and LOI was issued in the name of

two truck operators i.e. M/s Aagolai Goods Carrier and M/s Jethi

Devi.

Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred

SBCWP No.6812/2022, wherein the learned Single Bench, while

issuing notice to the respondents, has restrained the respondent-

IOCL from issuing work order in favour of the above-referred two

tank trucks operators. However, the respondent-IOCL, thereafter,

issued gate notice dated 23.11.2022 inviting General Transport

Contractors/Dealer-cum-Transport Contractors/RO Dealers, who

are interested to offer their tank trucks for road transportation of

bulk petroleum products, to submit their application in required

format along with relevant supporting documents.

Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred writ

petition alleging that the gate notice dated 23.11.2022 is an

extension of original tender and with the said action of the

respondent-IOCL, an attempt is made to frustrate the cause of the

appellant as also to overreach the stay order dated 13.5.2022

passed by this Court in SBCWP No.6812/2022. It was contended

on behalf of the appellant that the respondent-IOCL is giving

backdoor entry to the undeserving persons by some way or the

[2023:RJ-JD:32318-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-790/2023]

other. It is also contended that the respondent-IOCL had no

urgency to invite applications vide gate notice dated 23.11.2022

for 20 tank trucks because sufficient number of tank trucks are

available with the respondent-IOCL for regular supply of

petroleum products to the retail outlets.

In response to the show cause notice, reply to the writ

petition was filed on behalf of the respondent-IOCL, wherein it is

contended that the gate notice dated 23.11.2022 has been issued

to fulfill the deficit of tank trucks caused due to non placement of

tank trucks for own use by the dealers. It is further contended

that the IOCL issues an expression of interest for the existing R.O.

dealers, who want to give their own tank trucks for supply to their

own retail outlets and when the existing R.Os. give their

expression of interest, a general tender for transportation of bulk

petroleum product is issued by the Corporation for the total

number of requirement. It is further contended that though few

R.O. dealers showed their expression of interest earlier, but later

on, they did not fulfill the condition of supplying tank trucks and

on account of that, the deficit caused and to fulfill the said deficit,

the IOCL required to issue gate notice dated 23.11.2022. It is also

contended that looking to the emergent situation and for regular

supply of petroleum products to the retail outlets, the gate notice

was issued. It is also contended that the respondent-IOCL has not

issued the gate notice to overreach the stay order dated

13.5.2022 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.6812/2022.

The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for

the parties, has dismissed the writ petition, while observing that

[2023:RJ-JD:32318-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-790/2023]

the gate notice was issued to the General Transport

Contractors/Dealer-cum-Transport Contractors/RO Dealers dealers

to fulfill the deficit caused on account of the fact that few dealers,

who had earlier offered their tank trucks, have failed to provide

the same for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products.

The learned Singe Judge has also observed that as per Clause 8 of

the tender, the respondent-IOCL was empowered to bridge the

gap through a gate notice dated 23.11.2022.

With the aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge,

has dismissed the writ petition vide order impugned.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the

reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on Clause 8 of the NIT

is erroneous. It is submitted that Clause 8 of the NIT can be

invoked in a case, where a location is closed and resited to a new

location. However, in the present case, existing location was not

closed and no new location is resited. Learned counsel for the

appellant, thus, argued that dismissal of the writ petition by the

learned Single Judge in view of Condition No.8 of the NIT is

erroneous and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-IOCL has

frankly admitted that Clause 8 of the NIT speaks about resitement

of old location to a new location, but in the present case, no such

situation exists. However, it is contended that the respondent-

IOCL is very much empowered to issue gate notice inviting

General Transport Contractors/Dealer-cum-Transport

Contractors/RO Dealers under the existing contract offered

[2023:RJ-JD:32318-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-790/2023]

through tank trucks for road transportation of bulk petroleum

products as per Circular issued by it on 20 th November, 2015. It is

submitted that as some of the dealers, who had earlier offered

their tank trucks for transportation of petroleum products, have

failed to supply the tank trucks, the deficiency caused and to meet

the said deficiency, the gate notice was issued. It is further argued

that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition,

has not only relied upon Clause 8 of the NIT, but has also taken

into consideration the fact that the respondent-IOCL has issued

the gate notice to meet the deficiency caused on account of action

of few of the dealers, who have failed to supply tank trucks as

offered by them earlier.

Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, prayed that no

case for interference by this Court is made out and the present

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The stand of the respondent-IOCL in support of issuance of

gate notice is this that the same was issued to meet the deficiency

caused on account of non supply of the required number of tank

trucks by the R.O. dealers. It is noticed that the said stand of the

respondent-IOCL has not been specifically contradicted by the

appellant. The Circular (Annexure/R-1) dated 20 th November,

2015, issued by the respondent-IOCL, annexed with the reply to

the writ petition filed by the IOCL, is regarding award of work

order for tank trucks as per the NIT. Clause 4 of the said Circular

reads as under :

[2023:RJ-JD:32318-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-790/2023]

"4. After closure of tender, additional TTs requirement, either within the original NIT number or the revised NIT number can be inducted as under :

i) From existing dealer/dealer-

transporter/general transporters as per the provisions of DOA at established L1 rates.

ii) In case demand is not fulfilled by action taken at 4(i) above, the Public Expression of Interest (EOI) is to be floated seeking offer at established L1 rates for the balance period of the contract."

From the above, it is clear that even after closer of the

tender, the respondent-IOCL can ask for additional tank trucks as

per the requirement.

Resultantly, we do not find any force in this Special Appeal

and the same is hereby dismissed.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

ms rathore

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)