RAMESH GUPTA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 1685 of 2002 is an Association of transporters-cum-dealers, whereas Petitioners No. 2 to 4 in the said petition and Petitioners in CWP No. 1390 of 2002 and CWP No. 156 of 2003 are themselves transporters-cum-dealers of Respondents 1 to 4 companies, which are engaged in the exploration, refining and distribution of petroleum products, LPG and lubricants. Their precise grievance is that after opening the price bid on 24.9.2002 they were not invited for negotiations on 21.11.2002 when the transporters-cum-dealers falling in the category of L-1 to L-15 rates were called and their bids were accepted.

(2.) Before contracts could be entered into with the successful bidders by the oil companies, CWP No. 1685 of 2002 was filed and interim order dated 27.11.2002 was passed restraining Respondents No. 1 to 4, from placing any work order in favour of those tenderers whose bids were accepted pursuant to the negotiations held on 21.11.2002 for transportation of petroleum products in the State of Himachal Pradesh. By a subsequent order dated 14.2.2003 Respondents No. 7 to 14 were impleaded as party Respondents, who had participated in the negotiations being within L-l to L-5 rates for Ambala-Leh Ladakh and within L-l to L-15 rates for Ambala to Himachal Pradesh. They also filed reply-affidavits to the writ petitions and prayed for vacation of the stay. Reply-affidavits and rejoinders were also exchanged between Respondents 1 and 3 and the Petitioners.

(3.) When we set down the writ petition for admission, learned Counsel for the Respondents pressed their preliminary objection that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on this preliminary objection.