Ranga Oil Carrier Through Its Proprietor Mr. Gaje Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
!"# $ % &' Date of Decision:24.09.2018 Ranga Oil Carrier through its proprietor and another ..Petitioners versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
.....Respondent &( )*&
+, +&
- + )*&
+
**- Present :
Mr. Suneel Ranga, Advocate, for petitioner No.1. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate, for petitioner No.2. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. M.S.Rana, Advocate, for the respondent.
**** , +&
- +%.' Heard Shri Suneel Ranga and Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Ashish Kapoor alongwith Shri M.S.Rana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2.
Petitioners are the proprietorship concern engaged in the business of transportation of fuels mainly by tankers and trucks. Respondent1corporation is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the business of refining, supply and marketing of crude oil and petroleum products.
3.
Challenge in this petition has been made to notice dated 24.03.2017 inviting applications from the existing transporters for providing 30 Nos. of additional TT's (10 No. of 12 KL and 20 No. of 18 KL) for transportation of MS/HSD at PMC to various retail outlets/consumers attached to PMC. The notice required all the transporters and retail outlet
dealers having contract for running TTs in PMC against public tender No.DSO/OPS/POL1MH/BULK/2014119/PMC/03 could make a bid as per the aforesaid public tender. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that as per the tender documents referred to above, the requirement was 342 TTs for 12 KL and 296 TTs for 18KL and above. However, the tender document clearly stated the estimated tank trucks (hereinafter referred to as "the TTs") was indicative and subject to change.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the notice is completely against the true and intent purport of DNIT which emphasized on induction of additional tank trucks and discretion of the Indian Oil to engage the additional Directors apart from the contractors already appointed against the DNIT and the impugned notice inviting tender only from existing contractors is directly in the teeth of the DNIT.
5.
It is next contended that the petitioners being engaged in the business of tank trucks have a legitimate expectation to participate in the tender process in case there is a requirement of the tankers1trucks by the respondent1corporation especially when the remaining period is till 2019 and the impugned notice only confining the process to existing contractors excluding all others is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the concept and the manner of filling up additional requirement is simply a straight way of the respondents to adjust the persons of their own choice to the exclusion of all others which is not legally permissible.
6.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent1corporation in reply vehemently contended that the requirement indicated in the NIT dated 07.11.2014 was tentative and dependent upon various factors, the same could increase or decrease. It is further pointed out that for fulfilling the requirement the lowest price has to be established and thereafter eligible quoted tank1trucks were to be allocated in order of their ranking. After exhausting the eligible quoted tank trucks the remaining requirement, if any, was to be fulfilled from the proposed tank trucks in the order of their ranking at the lowest established rates and thereafter at a higher negotiated rate in order of ranking.
7.
Referring to the averments made in the written statement, learned counsel for the respondent1corporation points out that as per the records, number of eligible tank trucks offered by the bidders for 2014 tender were in excess of the estimated/projected requirement therein and thus several bidders who had quoted eligible tank trucks had not been issued any Letters of Intent. It may be relevant to extract the following relevant averments from the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent1corporation:1
!
! "# $
% !&'"#
( ) ( *)"
+
( ) (
( %
(
(
+
*)" $
, )"$ - .(
* !
&/$'0$&'"1
(
$ !
*
-
+ ( ) (
( %
(
(
$
.2(324 )-
!$$$2&'"#$
* 055
"& &67
"58* 9 $ 4 &'"#)"7
* ""/
$ 4 &'"7)"1
* 0/ 4
$3 !
*
$
!
! "# $: 8.
Referring to above averments in the written statement and clauses 13 and 4 of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender, it is submitted that it was in the discretion of the respondents to fill up the additional requirement from the existing contractors. To resolve the
controversy it may be relevant to examine the relevant tender conditions. Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions reads as under:1 "0$
! ; $
* !
$: /$
* !
! <) =%
=4 !
>= =;
=, =+
( !
! (
$ = ,
(
$: 9.
It may also be relevant to reproduce Clause 10 of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender:1 "'>=
* 4 (4 $
! ! 4 (4
; *)"
$ 4 (4 *)"
! $ >=
*
!
4 (4
*
4
4 4
$: 10.
Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions quoted above stipulates that the estimated number of tank trucks specified in the tender notice is indicative and subject to change. Similarly clause 4 (e) and (f) stipulates that during the pendency of the contract, if additional tank trucks are required, then the rights stand reserved in the IOCL to engage additional contractors/tank trucks at any time without giving any notice to the contractors already appointed against the tender or to award contracts to additional RO/Dealers/direct customers. Thus, under the terms and conditions of the tender, there is absolute freedom to the respondents to hire any truck for fulfilling the additional requirements either by engaging additional contractors/tank trucks without any notice to the contractors already appointed or even from the existing transporters. 11.
In the absence of any terms and conditions to the contrary, the right of the respondent1corporation to call upon the existing transporters to supply additional tank trucks under Clause 4(f) is its obligation and gives a corresponding right to the existing contractors to insist upon the demand for additional trucks being met by the corporation from the existing contractors. 12.
In the case of
relying upon the following observations made in paragraph17 of the judgment in case ! "# # $ % & % # $
'(')* ' it was held that the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous and they must be given a meaning and the
necessary significance. In the case of ! "# #+ , &, it was observed in paragraph17 as under:1 1????
!
@
! ! @$
; ;
$ !
$:
!
"
# $
!
#
%& &&$ ??A !
!
!
$
B
B
B B$ C ; !
!
$ ,
$+!
$ - ; $
; !
'
!
; $ ; !
!
!
$ ! !
$ ,
! !
( !
;
; !
$2
;
$:
(
!
)
! #
# %& &&?$
; !
<) > = C
!
D C
D
!
! :$
= C
$:
* + !
#
+
, $
) +
&
- . $
+ +$
+
!
#
+
,
# $
$ # ,
$ , $) + /01 234511 6 78952.
7 /153:;;
6 95<-7 =* ='
# Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No