ORDER:

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

2. The Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of Respondent No.2 Corporation (APSRTC) in issuing the letter bearing No.CM(Comm)/Oil Outlets/110(15)/2018-19, dated 10.08.2021, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of the terms and conditions of the request for proposal as well as violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the same and direct respondent No.2 Corporation (APSRTC) to transfer the (4) Letters of Intent dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure P6) in favour of petitioner No.2 (RBML) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in furtherance of justice.”

3. This Court has heard Sri L.Ravichander, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni and Ms. Avanija Inuganti, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS:

4. Sri L.Ravichander, learned senior counsel submits that the 1st petitioner is India’s largest industrial group with a private refinery. It is the successful tenderer in a bid floated by the respondents for development of sites for installation of retail oil outlets. Four letters of intent were also issued on 26.11.2020 in favour of the 1st petitioner. However, by then the petitioner had transferred all its retail marketing business to the 2nd petitioner herein. Learned senior counsel submits that the permission of Government of India was obtained for this transfer of marketing authorization to the 2nd petitioner. This is evidenced by a letter dated 31.03.2020 issued by the Government of India (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas). Learned senior counsel submits that the 1st and the 2nd petitioners have entered into a petroleum product supply agreement dated 09.07.2020 by which the 2nd petitioner has been given the exclusive rights to market the products manufactured by the 1st petitioner. It is also stated therein that the entire requirements of the product needed by the 2nd petitioner shall be supplied by the 1st petitioner. Learned senior counsel, therefore, argues that as the entire business of retailing in the petroleum product was transferred to the 2nd petitioner, a request was made on behalf of the 1st petitioner to transfer the letters of intent from the 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that even the licenses issued to the petitioner for all its retail outlets have been transferred in the name of the 2nd petitioner, therefore, it is submitted that the letters of intent, which are issued by the respondents in favour of the 1st petitioner should be transferred to the 2nd petitioner. Learned senior counsel argues that the respondents have refused to transfer these letters of intent on the ground that the 2nd petitioner is not owning an oil refinery and would have been ineligible to submit a bid in this case. It is his contention that when there is a transfer of the entire retail marketing business to the 2nd petitioner and the said transfer has been approved by the Government of India itself the 2nd petitioner cannot refuse to transfer the letters of intent. It is his contention that the respondents have taken a hyper technical approach ignoring the purpose for the tender was floated and awarded to the 1st petitioner. He submits that ultimate objective of the tender will be fulfilled even if the letters of intent are transferred to the 2nd petitioner as the output of petroleum oil and other products of the 1st petitioner are transferred for the purpose of marketing to the 2nd petitioner. The learned senior counsel therefore argues that the actions of the