TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondents floated the tender for road transport of Bulk Petroleum for advanced winter supplies for bulk Oil Storage and handling location in J and K (UT) vide tender No. RCC/NR/PSO/OVS/PT-141/20-21 for a period of three years with option for extension upto further two years at the sole discretion of the company. As per the clause of 1.4 of the NIT, the tenderer has to offer minimum three number of TTs in case of General and General MSE tenders and minimum two numbers in case of SC/ST. The petitioners participated in the tender process and their rates were also found as L-1 as the rates were quoted per K-1/Km. In the Reverse Auction process the tenderers was allowed to place his offer in terms of % age of the departmental estimate displaced on the portal and the band allowed for the same was 0% to - 10%) of the departmental estimate. In terms of Clause 1.11 the evaluation of tenders was placed in Lot-1 and Lot-2 as per the ranking in terms of highest number of TTs offered by a particular bidder. The above process was to be continued till the requirement of the trucks is fully met against this tender. It was mentioned in the aforesaid clause that in case the requirement of TTs is not met by above process IOCL shall offer L-1 rates to balance tenders in order of their ranking, but in the present case the requirement could be met from the L-1 bidder figuring in Lot-1 and Lot-2 itself. In the aforesaid background the petitioners submit that the petitioners TTs are only required to be inducted and allotment orders are to be issued in their favour. As per the petition there is requirement of 25 numbers (12-14 KL) TTs under transport category at Jammu depot against the tender in question which cannot be allotted in favour of the any other contractor who has not participated in the said tender and their TTs are figuring in the Lot-1 and Lot-2. The further case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have legitimate expectation to get their trucks tank inducted in pursuance to the terms and conditions of the NIT as they are L-1 bidders and in terms of evaluation they are figuring in the Lot-1 and Lot-2 prepared by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in terms of the said NIT. The grievance of the petitioners is that by virtue of impugned notice dtd. 20/8/2021 the petitioners have been put to disadvantages position and thus deprived of their getting the allotment for the TTs. The action of the petitioners is contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender earlier issued by the respondents.

(2.) The objections to the writ petition have been filed by the official respondents as well as the private respondents. Of course, the writ petition has been opposed by the company and the private respondent with similar defence. The respondents while not disputing the tender and the terms and conditions mentioned in the same however state that the respondents company was at liberty to engage additional contractors/tank trucks without giving notice to the contractors who had been already appointed against the tender. The option was with the respondents to further meet their requirement for induction of additional tank trucks. The respondents have also referred to the circular/policy guidelines issued by them in the year 2015. There is no vested right in the petitioners to have further right in the shortfall of 25 tank trucks that arose due to cancellation of seven contracts which resulted into issuance of notice dtd. 20/8/2021, impugned in the writ petition. The specific case of the respondents is that Letter of Intent was issued to successful bidders of 318 tank trucks and therefore the process of the tender came to be finalized and the tender was formally closed. The tender was not alive after the desired number of trucks was achieved. The precise submission is that once the tender process got concluded there was no obligation on part of the respondents to consider the unsuccessful bidder who could not be make the grade for the issuance of Letter of Intent (LOL) for the requirement of TTs.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.