Point of Law: If two views are possible the Court should not impose the other view in the instant case.

JUDGMENT :

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.

1. By a notice inviting tender sometime in May-June, 2021, the Indian Oil Corporation invited bids for road transportation of bulk petroleum products by Bottom Loading Tank Trucks from Jharsuguda Terminal. The writ petitioner submitted its bid on 25th July, 2021 offering 15 Tank Trucks.

2. In September, 2021 the IOCL sent diverse techno-commercial queries to and sought clarifications from the petitioner, inter alia, asking for documents like NOC for Tank Trucks already deployed for the benefit for IOC, PESO Certificate and a Board Resolutions. The petitioner supplied the said documents.

3. By an e-mail dated 2nd November, 2021 the petitioner was informed that its technical bid was accepted by the Technical Evaluation Committee. In a tender summary report published on 4th November, 2021, it was notified that the petitioner’s technical bid was accepted and was placed at serial No. 15. By a further communication dated th November, 2021 the petitioner was asked to participate in the financial part of the bid i.e. reverse auction for the Jharsuguda Terminal.

4. The petitioner duly participated in the said reverse auction on 12th November, 2021 and was awaiting a communication from the respondents. On the 19th November, 2021 the petitioner came to know that letters of acceptance have been sent to many transporters. The petitioner wrote to the respondents to ascertain its status. By a communication dated 22nd November, 2021 the petitioner was informed as follows:-“your tender was rejected during financial evaluation for the reason due to invalid RC book, 2 TTs got disqualified vide PQC. So, you had only 12 in LOT-I. Since there are more bidders with 15 TTs in LOT-I. No TTs would be allocated to the writ petitioner”. In the financial bid however the petitioner was ranked L-I along with other bidders.

Arguments:

5. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is unfair, arbitrary and illegal and tainted with mala fides. The petitioner had offered 15 TTs of which two were new vehicles. The said two new vehicles, had permanent Registration Numbers being No. OD15T0149 and OD15T0297 issued by the RTO, Sambalpur, Odisha.

6. At the time when bids were submitted the Smart Cards being the formal registration document with electronic data, was not received and was available only on the 14th and 17th August, 2021 respectfully. The Registration Certificate produced along with the tender constituted sufficient compliance of the pre-qualification conditions (PQC) of the NIT. The respondent was, therefore, not justified in holding that Registration Certificate/RC book of the 2 TTs were not furnished along with the tender.

7. It is next argued that the petitioner’s technical bid was already accepted by the respondents on 2nd November, 2021. It is only thereafter that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the financial part. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid from LOT-I category after technically disqualifying 2 TTs was illegal and arbitrary.

8. It is submitted that the two tank trucks disqualified by the IOC, had valid registration in terms of Section 41 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the disqualification of the said TTs for alleged absence RC book is contrary to law unfair and arbitrary.

9. It is argued that the actions of the Indian Oil Corporation are bad for waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. The rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid, after approving the same and allowing him to participate in the financial part of the tender process is for collateral purposes. It is aimed at depriving the petitioner of the benefits of LOT-I thereby allowing unlawful gain to other tenderers.

10. In support of his argument Mr. Bandyopadhyay relied upon the following judgments. B. Yellaswamy Vs. South Central Railw