GANAPATHY TRANSPORTS Vs. SENIOR MANAGER CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [A GROUP COMPANY OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition seeking for the relief of quashing the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.06.2011 issued in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to award the Tender bearing No.CC009610 dated 22.12.2010 to the petitioner for 28 Tank Trucks.

(2.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of private services for transport of bulk and packed bitumen for the last more than 19 years. The petitioner has been awarded tenders by HPCL, IOCL, BPCL etc., for transport of Bulk Bitumen. The tenders for the transport of packed bitumen have been awarded to the petitioner by the District Rural Development Agencies of the Tamil Nadu State Government. 2.2. The 1st respondent is dealing in the products of Motor Spirit, LPG, Superior Kerosene, Aviation Turbine Fuel, High Speed Diesel, Bitumen, Fuel Oil etc. The respondents 2 and 3 are the other transport companies inter-alia, engaged in the similar business as that of the petitioner. 2.3. The 1st respondent issued a Notice inviting tender bearing Tender No.CC009610 dated 22.12.2010 for the work of Raod Transport Services for movement of Reduced Crude Oil [RCO] from its Cauvery Basin Refinery, Nagapattinam, to its Refinery at Manali. The bids were to be in two parts, Part A being the Techno Commercial Bid and Part B being the Price Bid. Sealed item rate tenders were invited while fixing the due date for the submission of the bids as 20.04.2011. A pre-bid meeting was provided for and scheduled on 07.01.2011. EMD was fixed at Rs.6,000/- for each tank truck and the contract period was for 24 months. 2.4. Three corrigenda were later issued by the 1st respondent dated 21.01.2011, 04.02.2011 and 11.02.2011 respectively. On 15.02.2011, the petitioner submitted its bid as required under the tender and the corrigenda, as required by the 1st respondent. Totally 24 bids were made which included the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. 2.5. On 16.02.2011, the Part A techno commercial bids were opened and evaluated over a period of around three and a half months. Finally, 20 of the bidders were found eligible at this stage. 2.6. On 13.06.2011, the price bids were opened in front of all the 20 aforesaid bidders which included the petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively. The petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and

(3.) MR.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that there is absolutely no illegality or irregularity in respect of confirming the tenders offered by the respondents 2 and 3. It is reiterated by the learned senior counsel that both the respondents 2 and 3 have offered 27 trucks each with valid permits for the transporting the petroleum products. It is contended that though the petitioner had offered 28 tank trucks, among the said 28 trucks, admittedly, only 14 trucks are having valid permits to transport the petroleum products and the remaining trucks are having valid permits for the exclusive transport of bitumen. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the 1st respondent has confirmed the tenders offered by the respondents 2 and 3 in a mechanical or arbitrary manner or adopted any unfair procedure.