1. On 28.11.2011 I had heard this matter fully and reserved for judgment. Thereafter three other similar matters which came up on different dates were also heard, but the counsel in the latter cases requested time for an elaborate hearing. This writ petition was therefore not disposed of awaiting hearing in the other cases to be completed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has moved another writ petition raising similar issue questioning the order passed with respect to other transporters, which affects the same petitioner. In view of that, it was found desirable to dispose of writ petition.

2. Petitioner herein is a transport contractor, who deals with petroleum products, states in the affidavit that he has five vehicles at his disposal which are lorry tankers which carry petroleum products. Their numbers are AP 29 T 1685, AP 28 U 6318, AP 28 T 8949, AP 29 T 7974 and AP 10 T 7839. Petitioner has participated in the tenders called for by the respondents for transportation of MS/HSD, ex-Charlapalli and in response to the petitioner’s tender the rates acceptable to the respondents was communicated to the petitioner under the letter of the respondent dated 25th January 2011 requesting the petitioner to intimate his acceptance. The petitioner has informed his acceptance on 27.01.2011 itself. However on the ground that the said tender and work order is not allotted to him, the present writ petition came to be filed on 23.8.2011.

3. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit inter alia stating that one of the vehicles of the petitioner was blacklisted by proceedings of the Corporation dated 08.4.2011 when the said vehicle was attached to one M/s. Mohd. Jameel, another transporter of BPCL. The counter-affidavit refers to the correspondence and proceedings with the said Mohd. Jameel and the proceedings dated 08.4.2011 refers to the said malpractice having been condoned by the respondents by imposing a fine of Rs.8,92,891.14 ps. towards product loss on the said Mohd. Jameel. It is stated that since the vehicle AP 28 T 8949, which was blacklisted, and vehicle No.AP 28 U 6318 are two of the vehicles offered by the petitioner having been found to be blacklisted, subsequently the respondents have not awarded the work order to the petitioner. The additional counter also reiterates the same factual contention and it also seeks to place reliance upon the guidelines framed by the Corporation which are called as “Transport Discipline Guidelines”, wherein tampering with standard fittings of tank truck including sealing, security locks, security locking system, calibration etc., which leads to pilferage of petroleum products are treated as irregularities and illegal and tanker itself is blacklisted under clause 8.2.3. Placing reliance upon the said guidelines, the respondents justified their blacklisting the vehicles of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply-affidavit mentioning that he had no notice of any of the proceedings of the respondents wherein the said two vehicles are said to have been blacklisted. He points out that with regard to allegations against vehicle No.AP 28 T 8949 and the order dated 08.4.2011 which was passed against Mohd. Jameel was in fact condoned by the respondents by imposing fine on the said transporter and with regard to the other vehicle, no proceedings of blacklisting are produced even now. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit along with W.P.M.P. No.40900 of 2011 wherein he states that he may be allowed to replace the vehicle AP 28 T 8949 by another vehicle so that there is no impediment in considering petitioner’s tender.

5. On appreciation of rival contentions as above, it would immediately noticed that the proceedings regarding blacklisting of the vehicle AP 28 T 8949 was not issued to the petitioner nor there was any correspondence between the respondents and the petitioner and the order though passed against anothe