M/S Agolai Goods Career vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 7310 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29946]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6816/2022

M/s Girdharisingh Shekhawat Tankers, Through Its Partner Loeksh Singh S/o Shri Girdhari Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o H.no. 51-1, Sector No. 9, Hanumangarh Junction, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Nodal Officer, Rajasthan State Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar Rd, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004.

2. Aagolai Goods Carrier, Through Its Proprietor Shri Pukhraj Choudhary, R/o Dughdh Dairy Ke Peechey, Balotara District Barmer (Raj.).

3. M/s Jethi Devi, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Jethi Devi W/ o Pukhraj Choudhary, R/o Dughdh Dairy Ke Peechey, Balotara District Barmer (Raj.).

4. Ramnivas Chaudhary, Manager (Operations), Indian Oil Corporation Depot., Salawas, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. Indian Oil Corporation, Through Its Secretary, Northern Regional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi 110016.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6812/2022 Rajputana Transport Company, Through Its Proprietor Bhanwar Singh Champawat S/o Shri Malam Singh Champawat, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 56, Shiv Colony, Shikrgarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Nodal Officer, Rajasthan State Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar Rd, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004.

2. Aagolai Goods Carrier, Through Its Proprietor Shri Pukhraj Choudhary R/o Dughdh Dairy Ke Peechey, Balotara District Barmer (Raj.).

3. M/s Jethi Devi, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Jethi Devi W/ o Shri Pukhraj Choudhary R/o Dughdh Dairy Ke Peechey, Balotara District Barmer (Raj.).

4. Ramnivas Chaudhary, Manager (Operations), Indian Oil Corporation Depot, Salawas, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. Indian Oil Corporation, Through Its Secretary, Northern Regional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi - 110016.

6. Chief Controller of Explosive, A Block, CGO Complex, Fifth floor, Seminary Hills, Nagpur - (Maharashtra).

7. Joint Chief Controller of Explosive (Petroleum Safety

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (2 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

Organisation), North Circle, Hall no 502 and 507, Level-5, Block IInd, Old CGO Complex, NH 4 Faridabad, Pin 121001.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18484/2022 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.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limtied, 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 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18732/2022 M/s Agolai Goods Career, Through Its Partner Shri Pukhraj Choudhary S/o Shri Dharma Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Behind Dugdh, Dairy, Balotra, District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Deputy General Manager (T) Jodhpur Terminal, Salawas, Jodhpur.

2. The Secretary, Northern Region Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Yusuf Sarai New Delhi.

                                               ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. CS Kotwani.
                                Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G.
                                assisted by Mr.Prakash Raika.
                                Mr.Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted
                                by Mr. Govind Suthar.
                                Mr. Nishant Bora.
                                Mr. Mahaveer Singh.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 06/09/2023 Pronounced on 18/09/2023

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (3 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

1. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:

CWP No.6816/2022:

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and, by an appropriate writ order or direction:

i. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the LOIs issued to the respondent No.2 and 3 in respect of notice inviting tender No.RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22;

ii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to initiate a proper enquiry against the erring officials and the Respondent No.4 because of which respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 were illegal issued LOIs;

iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed to petitioner;

iv. Costs of the petitioner may be awarded to the petitioner."

CWP No.6812/2022:

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and, by an appropriate writ order or direction:

i. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the LOIs issued to the respondent No.2 and 3 in respect of notice inviting tender No.RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22;

ii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to initiate a proper enquiry against the erring officials and the Respondent No.4 because of which respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 were illegal issued LOIs;

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (4 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

iii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to disqualify the respondent No.2 and 3 from future bidding and further directing the respondent No.1 to consider afresh the bid of the petitioner along with other bidders;

iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed to petitioner;

iv. Costs of the petitioner may be awarded to the petitioner."

CWP No.18484/2022:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and am appropriate writ/order/direction be issued to the Respondents to the following effect-

I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction gate notice ref : RSO/OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1 Dated 23/11/2022 (Annx.3) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction any order or action in pursuance to the gate notice (Annex.3) may also be declared illegal and hence quashed and set aside.

III. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents be directed not to take any further action in name of supply of tank trucks in pursuance of gate notice dated 23.11.22 (Annex 3)

IV. By an appropriate writ order or direction in the alternative, without prejudice to the aforesaid if the Hon'ble court deems it appropriate respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner company (who is in top sequence waiting under the earlier original tender) to give first offer to work for the completion of the supply under gate notice ref : RSO/OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1 Dated 23/11/2022 (Annx.3).

V. By an appropriate writ order or direction respondents may kindly be directed that Tank trucks who had earlier being

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (5 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

restrained from issuance of work order in pursuance of tender no. RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22 (Annx 1) may kindly not be allowed to participate in gate notice ref : RSO/ OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1 Dated 23/11/2022 (Annx.3) after attaching with new firm.

VI. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.

VII. The Petitioner may be allowed with heavy cost against the Respondents."

CWP No.18732/2022:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition, call for the record and :-

i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Tender Notice dated 23.11.2022 (Annex-4) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

ii) In the alternative, without prejudice to above, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent be directed to permit the petitioner and to permit to apply in pursuant to the tender notice dt. 23.11.2022 treating them as existing transport contractor as they had already issued LOI in pursuant to the tender notice dated 23.11.2022.

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Writ Petition No.6816/2022 is taken as a lead case for

the adjudication in the said petition as also Writ Petition

No.6812/2022; likewise, Writ Petition No.18484/2022 is

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (6 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

taken as a lead case for the adjudication of the said petition as

also Writ Petition No.18732/2022.

3. As the facts pleaded in the lead case, i.e. Writ Petition

No.6816/2022 would reveal, the respondent no.5 issued a

notice inviting tender no.RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22, Tender

ID - 2021-NRO-141805_1 for road transportation of bulk

petroleum products - MS/HSD/Branded Fuels at Jodhpur Terminal

Salawas, wherein various terms and conditions were stipulated to

be fulfilled by the prospective bidders, failing which they would not

be allowed to participate in the tender process.

3.1. The due date for submission of the relevant documents for

the tender was 02.11.2021 and the opening date of the tender

was 03.11.2021; the petitioners submitted their documents on the

due date in the MSE-General Category on booking slips. However,

the petitioners' technical bid was rejected, and instead the bids of

respondents no.2 & 3 were accepted, and subsequently, Letters of

Intent (LOIs) were issued to them.

3.2. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents no.1 & 5, in

issuing the LOIs' in favour of respondents no.2 & 3, the petitioners

have preferred the present writ petitions No.6816/2022 &

6812/2022 claiming the afore quoted reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in writ petitions

No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022, submitted that the respondents

no.2 & 3 were not in possession of a valid Petroleum and

Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) License on the date, when

valid documents were required to be submitted, i.e. on

02.11.2021, instead the valid PESO license was issued to them on

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (7 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

15.11.2021, which was 13 days after the due date mentioned in

the notice inviting tender; such temporary license was in clear

contravention of the conditions so provided under the 'General

Terms' in Clause 21 of the Notice Inviting Tender; whereas the

petitioners had submitted their documents on the due date in the

General Category with all the relevant documents, yet their bids

were not taken into consideration, instead respondents no.2 & 3

were awarded the Letter of Intent (LOI) by the respondents no.1

& 5.

4.1. It was further submitted that the bidders were required to

give 'declaration' with regard to employees who are either related

to or relatives of officers of the Oil Company/Central Government/

State Government, however, respondents no.2 & 3 failed to

disclose the fact that the respondent no.4 is the son-in-law of

respondent no.2 and further respondent no.3 was working as the

Operation Manager in Respondent no.1 company at Salawas,

which is in complete contravention of the Declaration 'II' given in

the terms & conditions of the tender.

4.2. It was also submitted that as per the relevant office orders

issued by the State of Rajasthan, in accordance with the Motor

Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 2019, the registration of any vehicle

will only be at one place, yet respondent no.1 did not take into

account the fact that both the respondents no.2 & 3 had different

addresses for registration and obtaining the PESO license.

4.3. Learned counsel, in support of such submissions, placed

reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v.

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (8 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

M/s Anoj Kumar Garwala, (Civil Appeal No. 1049/2019,

decided on 23.01.2019).

5. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Deputy S.G.;

Mr.Manoj Bhadari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Govind

Suthar, Mr. Nishant Bora and Mr. R.S. Rathore, appearing on behalf

of the respondents, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the petitioners.

5.1. It was submitted that that PESO itself had issued certificates

on 01.11.2021 for 15 vehicles and it was not a temporary

registration certificate but was a license issued by the PESO and

the same was is from the number given to each and every tank

truck. In furtherance, it was submitted that only calibration

certificate was required to be issued by the company i.e. the

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) with regard to the calibration of

each and every vehicle and the same was always done subsequent

to issuance of license by PESO.

5.2. It was further submitted that on 20.05.2022, PESO had

issued a clarification letter with regard to the licenses issued on

01.11.2021, stating therein, to treat the aforesaid permissions as

permanent licenses. In furtherance, it was submitted that the

letter dated 15.11.2021 issued by PESO was only an approval

after submission of the calibration certificates that the license

which issued on 01.11.2021 was in accordance with law.

5.3. It was further submitted that the respondents no.2 & 3 had

already made 'declarations' while filing the tender documents in

accordance with law, and thus, allegation of there being

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (9 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

malfeasance on account of relations, as levelled by the petitioners,

was absolutely false and baseless.

5.4. It was also submitted that the reasons for rejection after

technical evaluation was informed to all the bidders including the

petitioners and a summary report was uploaded on the e-

tendering portal, whereby bid of petitioner- M/s Girdhari Singh

Shekhawat Tankers was rejected as it had applied in the MSE-

GENERAL Category on booking slips; however bidding on the basis

of booking slips was only for bidders applying under SC/ST

Category and petitioner- Rajputana Transport Company though

technically qualified in the tender and also participated in the

Reverse Auction Process, however allocation of tank trucks got

completed at a seniority higher than the one achieved by the

petitioner.

5.5. It was further submitted that the bids were evaluated on the

basis of the submitted documents after verifying the documents

with the available means i.e. details available on the internet

portals of the agencies, and thus, the documents were verified on

Vahaan & PESO portals. In furtherance, it was submitted that by

the communication dated 01.11.2021 of the Deputy Controller of

Explosives, permission had been given by PESO to respondent

no.2 & 3 for carrying of petroleum products for one month i.e. till

30.11.2021; subsequently on verification at PESO website, the

tank trucks had license to carry petroleum product valid upto

14.11.2026, thereafter by communication dated 20.05.2022 PESO

itself issued a clarification that the permissions issued on

01.11.2022 be treated as permanent license.

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (10 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

5.6. It was also submitted that the calibration certificate with

regard to tank trucks was not a mandatory document nor

mentioned in the list of documents required for issuance of license

of tank lorry in Form XI, but was instead an additional

confirmation document for petroleum carrying tank issued by the

Department of Legal Metrology of the State, and since the

calibration certificate was not received, the permission was

granted for one month; thereafter on receipt of calibration

certificate, licenses were issued in Form XI for carrying petroleum

class A/B in tank lorry as per Petroleum Rules, 2002 on

15.11.2021 valid upto 14.11.2026.

5.7. It was also submitted that such permissions had been issued

by the organization in the past as well and the safety of the tank

lorry had not been compromised while issuing permission for

transportation of Petroleum Class A/B.

6. As per the facts pleaded in the lead case, i.e. Writ petition

No.18484/2022, the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business

of petroleum products and the above mentioned tender was

issued, wherein the petitioner participated as a bidder, however,

the LOIs were issued to the other two bidders i.e. respondents

No.2 & 3 in WP Nos.6816/2022 & 6812/2022. Thereafter, during

hearing of the above mentioned writ petitions, Coordinate Bench

of this Hon'ble Court on 13.05.2022 ordered stay on the issuance

of the work orders i.e. the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the

above-said two bidders who were issued the LOIs.

6.1. However, the respondent Company-IOCL issued a bulk POL

transport gate notice No.RSO/OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (11 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

for 20 tank trucks on 23.11.2022 whereby the interested general

transport contractors/dealers cum transport contractors /RO

dealers under the existing transport contract were called upon to

offer their tank trucks for road transportation of bulk petroleum

products ex-Jodhpur at L1 rates finalised in the above-mentioned

tender. Aggrieved of the impugned notice, the petitioners have

preferred the present Writ petitions No. 18484/2022 &

18732/2022 claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

impugned notice was an extension of the original tender (above-

mentioned), and thus, no new tender was floated by the

respondent Company-IOCL, instead it was in addition and was

issued to meet the instant demands of transportation from the

existing transport contractors. In furtherance, it was submitted

that by way of the impugned notice, the respondent Company-

IOCL was trying to overreach the stay order as passed by this

Hon'ble Court on 13.05.2022, by procuring its requirement and

the same in turn is rendering the writ petition no. 6812/2022 as

infructuous.

7.1. It was also submitted that the even though the petitioner-

Rajputana Transport Company was eligible for grant of LOI, the

same was not awarded to it, and thereafter even though the

petitioner company was in the waiting list, yet by way of the

impugned notice, the petitioner company was ousted from even

participating in the gate notice as the same was reserved only for

the existing contractors.

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (12 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

7.2. In furtherance, it was submitted that the petitioner- M/s

Agolai Goods Career (Respondent no.2 in writ petition no.

6816/2022 & 6812/2022) had already been issued work order by

the respondent-Company-IOCL prior to passing of the interim

order, and for that purpose, appropriate amount had already been

deposited by the petitioner company; however due to the stay

order, the tank trucks were lying in limbo and presently due to the

impugned notice, the petitioner company had been ousted from

providing the tank trucks.

7.3. It was further submitted that there was no urgency for

procuring the said tank trucks as the respondent Company-IOCL

was already procuring the same on ad hoc basis for 30+30+30

days every couple of months.

8. On the other hand, the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the petitioners, have been opposed on behalf of the

respondents.

8.1. It was submitted that the impugned gate notice was issued

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

of tank trucks for own use by dealers.

8.2. It was further submitted that the respondent Company-IOCL

had issued an Expression Of Interest (EOI) ref:

RSO/POL/BULK/JDH/EOI/2022-2025 for the existing R.O. dealers

to give their own tank trucks for supply to their own retail outlets

and the same was finalized prior to floating of the General

Transportation Tender and after arriving at the number of Tank

trucks available for own supplies through the EOI, balance

requirement of transport category tank trucks were calculated and

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (13 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

general transportation public tender was floated vide tender ref:

RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22, however few dealers who had

earlier offered tank trucks in the above EOI did not place those

tank trucks creating a deficit, thus made it necessary to induct 20

tank trucks against the said deficit through the impugned Gate

Notice.

8.3. It was also submitted that such induction of tank trucks by

notice was issued in accordance with corporation policy ref:

OP/PKY/Transport (Circular 80) dated 20.11.2015 and such

induction was not related to the fulfillment of deficit of 30 tank

trucks caused due to stay of issuance of work order to the

respondents no. 2 & 3 of the above-said WP No.6816/2022 &

6812/2022.

8.4. It was further submitted that as per the tender condition

Clause no.4 of Terms & Conditions of tender, respondent

Company-IOCL at its discretion could divide the work among

contractor(s) and engage additional tank trucks; also as per

Clause no.8, respondent Company-IOCL could issue a gate notice

in an event requiring the company additional tank trucks.

8.5. It was also submitted that the respondent Company-IOCL

was taking temporary induction of tank trucks to fulfill the deficit,

so caused by the stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the

above two writ petitions (No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022). Thus, 20

tank trucks were to be inducted through the gate notice in

question; however the same would not affect the right of the

petitioners in the matter of pending original tender; here the

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (14 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

respondent Company-IOCL, through the impugned notice, was

only trying to plug the gap, in pursuance of the stay order.

9. Heard learned counsels for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case along with judgment cited at the bar.

10. In Writ Petitions No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022, this

Court observes that the respondents no.1 & 5 issued the tender in

question for road transportation of bulk petroleum products,

prospective bidders submitted the relevant documents by the due

date and thereafter respondents no.2 & 3 were issued the Letter

of Intent (LOIs'), aggrieved of the LOIs so issued in their favour,

the petitioners preferred the said instant writ petitions.

10.1.This Court further observes that the respondents no. 2 & 3

had received permission to carry petroleum products of Class A/B

on 01.11.2021 as can be seen from the communication of the

Deputy Controller of Explosives (PESO) to the respondents no.2 &

3; relevant portion of the said communication dated 01.11.2021 is

reproduced as under:

"1. Pending submission of duly attested calibration certificate, you are permitted to carry 22 KL (5,5,4,4,4KL) of petroleum class A/B in the subject tanker for one month from the date of issue of this letter or grant of license whichever is earlier. You are also advised to take all safety precautions as per the provisions of Petroleum rules 2002 while using the subject tanker for transportation/ loading / unloading of petroleum product."

10.2. This Court further observes that PESO (license issuing

authority) itself admitted that after the permissions were given,

only calibration certificate was required, and the same was not a

mandatory document for issuance of license, but an additional

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (15 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

confirmation, and thus, the permission had been initially given for

a period of one month; thereafter once the calibration certificate

was received, on 15.11.2021 the licenses were granted with

validity till 14.11.2026; a clarification letter had further been

issued by the PESO on 20.05.2022 with regard to the permissions

given to respondents no.2 & 3 on 01.11.2021 stating therein that

the same were permanent licenses and thus, be treated as such;

relevant portion of communications dated 20.05.2022 is

reproduced as hereunder:

"Please refer to your letter no. nil dated 20/5/2022 regarding the subject matter, it is clarified that permissions have been issued by this office on 01/11/2021 to transport petroleum product in the following tanker- .......

Aforesaid permissions for these tankers shall be treated as permanent licence to transport petroleum product in tankers and have the same effect as permanent licence."

10.3. This Court also observes that the respondent Company-IOCL

had verified the documents of both the bidders - respondents no.2

& 3 on the concerned web portals and only then their bids had

been accepted, resulting in the issuance of the Letter of Intent

(LOIs) to them.

10.4. In the above backdrop, this Court observes that since the

permissions were granted on 01.11.2021 for carrying petroleum

products of Class A/B, and further, on 20.05.2022, the PESO itself

clarified that the said permissions were to be treated as

permanent licenses, therefore, it is clear that there was no

violation of Clause 21 of the Tender and that the said permissions

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (16 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

were not temporary licenses, as claimed on behalf of the

petitioners.

10.5. This Court also observes that the judgment cited at the Bar

on behalf of the petitioners also does not render any assistance to

their case.

11. In Writ Petitions No. 18484/2022 & 18732/2022, this

Court observes that the respondent Company-IOCL in pursuance

of the stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 13.05.2022,

issued the impugned gate notice to fulfill the deficit of tank trucks

caused due to the non placement of tank trucks for own use by

the dealers; however, the petitioners in the said writ petitions

were aggrieved since they were unable to apply for offering their

own tank trucks.

11.1. This Court further observes that the impugned notice was

issued only to the general transport contractors/dealer cum

transport contractors/R.O. dealers under the existing transport

contract, and thus, the petitioners could not have participated in

the gate notice dated 23.11.2022, as they were not existing

transporters of the respondent Company-IOCL.

11.2. This Court also observes that the respondent Company-IOCL

had issued the aforesaid EOI for obtaining the offers of tanks

trucks for own supplies of the Dealers/direct customers only and

thereafter calculation of the number of tank trucks available for

own supplies through the EOI was arrived at, and in furtherance,

the balance amount of tank trucks required was calculated;

thereafter, the above-said general transportation tender was

floated; however due to a few dealers who had earlier offered tank

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (17 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

trucks in the EOI did not fulfill the supply of tank trucks, and thus,

a deficit was caused.

11.3. In furtherance, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court

passed a stay order dated 13.05.2022 on the issuance of work

orders to the bidders (respondent no.2 & 3 in the above writ

petitions No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022), whose tender was

accepted and had been granted the LOIs, which in turn delayed

the process of procuring tank trucks for transportation of the bulk

petroleum products, and thus, for the above-stated reasons, it

became an impediment on the respondent Company-IOCL to issue

the impugned gate notice for 20 tank trucks.

11.4. This Court further observes that as per Clause 8 of the

tender, on an occasion which requires additional tank trucks, the

respondent Company-IOCL was empowered to bridge the gap

through a gate notice to existing willing contractors; relevant

portion of the said Clause 8 is reproduced as hereunder:

"8. Resitement of an old top loading location to a new top loading location - In case a location is closed and resited to a new location (where closed location and resited location are both top-loading locations), Company will have right to direct Contractors to shift to the new location without any compensation and at the same rate, terms and conditions.

Those Contractors who wish to withdraw from the pool or not offer TTs at the same terms and conditions will be allowed to do so. In such an event where Company will require additional TTs (gap created from NIT Nos.vs. TTs not offered during re-sitement) option will be given to existing willing Contractors to bridge the gap through a gate notice and if requirement is not met from existing

[2023:RJ-JD:29946] (18 of 18) [CW-6816/2022]

Contractors, then, Company reserves the right to go for NIT or Public EOI."

11.5. In furtherance, procuring of the 20 tank trucks was

necessary to fulfill the deficit in order to maintain the supply of

bulk petroleum products and to avoid a state of chaos among the

general public.

12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a

fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present

petitions.

13. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)