M/S. HARYANA CARRIERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.3, hereafter "IOCL"), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.2, hereafter "BPCL") and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.4 "HPCL"), all of whom are Oil Marketing Companies, had in 2014, invited through etender dated 01.09.2014 Region/Zone wise offers/bids for transportation of Bulk LPG by road in Tank Trucks (TTs) from various loading locations to bottling plants of their customers for three years ("the said Tender").

(2.) The credential bids were to be opened on 24.09.2014 and thereafter, the price bids of the bidders who would have qualified in the credential bids were to be opened on a subsequent notified date. In case the number of TTs on offer was more than the required number, the ranking was to be done as provided in Clause 4 of the Tender. The credential bids were opened on 24.09.2014. Thereafter, the process of evaluation of the price bids of the eligible bidders was undertaken by the Regional offices of the Oil Companies. The requirement for the northern region was 963 Tank Trucks, for which 276 transporters submitted their bids offering 1572 ready Tank Trucks. These bidders also offered 116 proposed Trucks. The total number of eligible tank trucks on L1 rates for the Northern Region of BPCL were 1498 ready TTs, and LOIs to 963 TTs were issued.

(3.) In the meanwhile, some bidders had approached this court through a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 964/2015 - Bajrang International Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd) complaining that bidders whose vehicles did not conform to tender specifications were being considered and their tenders accepted. The response to this petition was that the condition in question, i.e. the TTs needing to be fitted with IEFC valve [hereafter "IEFCV"], was inessential, because the Petroleum Energy Safety Organization (PESO) had by guidelines, dated 10.06.2013, modified the guidelines so that trucks without such valve could be used. By judgment dated 24.09.2015, this court allowed the petition and held that tender stipulations were non-derogable; it was held that: