JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner seeks setting aside of a contract awarded by the respondent no. 1 Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to the private respondents on 30th June, 2022 and the letter of acceptance of the private respondents (5 – 44) dated 2nd July, 2022. The ground of seeking cancellation is that the IOCL has used the tender conditions to the prejudice of the petitioner and has modified the same in favour of the private respondents.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that IOCL failed to adhere to the tender conditions as well as the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Counsel submits that IOCL has also failed to apply the tender conditions uniformly for all the bidders and has shifted the goal-post after start of the game by selective interpretation of the tender conditions to the detriment of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the IOCL refers to two decisions of the Supreme Court upholding interpretation of the tender document by the authority which floated the tender. Counsel refers to the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters. Counsel submits that the documents submitted by the petitioner are temporary certificates of registration and do not contain any particular date of issuance by the registering authority. It is further submitted that the alleged variation of the tender conditions arose from the ambiguity in the documents offered by the bidders in relation to the date of manufacturing of their vehicles and IOCL was hence constrained to approach the three manufacturers for confirmation of the date of manufacture of the vehicles offered by the bidders. It is further submitted that the tendering authority (IOCL) was duty bound to enquire into the complaints received in respect of furnishing the date of manufacturing of the vehicles offered by the bidders.

4. The tender was floated by the IOCL for induction of trucks for transportation of Indane LPG cylinders in vertical position on unit rate basis for a period of 3 years with a provision for two yearly extensions. Clause 14 of the Tender Schedule required that the maximum age of any quoted truck (as reckoned from the month and year of manufacturing in RTO Registration) should not exceed 14 years as on the closing date of the tender. The dispute relates to Clause V(A)(d) (Conditions governing the offers of trucks) of the Notice Inviting e-Tender which provides for the following conditions:

(i) Age of the quoted truck shall not exceed the limit as specified in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) as on the closing date of the tender submission reckoned from the month and year of manufacturing as mentioned in RC book.

(ii) In case only year of manufacturing is mentioned in the RTO Registration, the age should be reckoned from 1st January of the year of manufacturing.

(iii) In case both month and year of manufacturing is mentioned in the RTO Registration, the age should be reckoned from 1st day of the month of manufacturing.

(iv) In case manufacturing year or month and year are not entered in the RC book, the bidders would have to submit the copy of original invoice as a proof of establishing the date of manufacturing of Truck offered.

(v) In case Original Sale Invoice is not available, then the Certificate issued by Manufacturers is to be submitted.

(vi) In case the manufacturing date cannot be established from any of the documents then the relevant quoted truck will be rejected.

5. The above conditions are repeated in the Pre-qualification Criteria with reference to the age of offered trucks.

6. The criterion hence is the age of the truck; i.e. the youngest truck would be eligible for selection, in other words, the truck bearing a month and year which is the latest in point of time in comparison to the other contender trucks offered by the bidders.

7. The case made out by the petitioner is that the Certificate issued by Ashok Leyland, the manufacturer, indicates that all