SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 1035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
GAURANG KANTH, J.
Rakesh Kumar Shaw – Petitioner 
Versus 
The Union of India And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A. 8748 of 2025 with WPA 9056 of 2025 
Decided On : 06-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Ms. Anusmita Bhattacharya, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rabindra Nath Bag, Ld. Sr. Adv., Ms. Mary Datta, Adv. Mr. Sk. Md. Wasim Akram, Adv., Mr. Jaydip Kar, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjib Kr. Mal, Adv., Mr. Bimalendu Das, Adv., Ms. Shomrita Das, Adv., Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Sobhan Kumar Pathak, Adv., Mr. Sohan Krishna Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Nag, Adv., Ms. Pritha Bhowumik, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The writ petitions, being WPA 8748 of 2025 and WPA 9056 of 2025, have been filed challenging the tender notices bearing NIT Nos. LPG/BULK/TT/IOC/WB/2025-30, LPG/BULK/TT/ BPC/ WB/2025- 30, and LPG/BULK/ TT/HPC/WB/2025-30, issued respectively by Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 6. WPA 8748 of 2025 has been preferred by an association, whereas WPA 9056 of 2025 has been filed by an individual. Both petitioners have raised identical grounds of challenge, and the contesting parties in both the writ petitions are the same. During the course of the hearing, arguments were advanced only in WPA 8748 of 2025. Since the same counsels are appearing in both the writ petitions, no further submissions were made in WPA 9056 of 2025.

2. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of both writ petitions by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, reference shall be made to the facts and grounds as stated in WPA 8748 of 2025.

3. The Petitioners, in the present writ petition, seek to challenge the bulk LPG transportation tenders bearing NIT Nos. LPG/BULK/TT/IOC/WB/2025-30, LPG/ BULK/ TT/BPC/WB/ 2025-30, and LPG/BULK/TT/HPC/WB/2025-30, issued respectively by Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 6, who are Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), for the purpose of awarding bulk LPG transportation contracts by road within the State of West Bengal. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the impugned tenders have been arbitrarily framed so as to confer an undue advantage upon certain classes of contractors, to the exclusion and detriment of others. It is further alleged that the terms and conditions of the said tenders are violative of the principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity, thereby undermining the objective of ensuring a level playing field in the tendering process.

4. The facts leading to the present case is as follows:

5. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the West Bengal Society Registration Act, 1961 and is established for the welfare and well-being of Bulk LPG Transport Contractors of Eastern India and for protecting their business interests. It is a part of All India Bulk LPG Transporters Federation. Petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No. 2,3, and 4 are all Tank Truck Owners and contractors of the Respondent OMC’s. In the present writ Petition, Petitioner No. 1 represents 18 MT Tank Trucks (TT’s) owners.

6. State wise tenders have been floated by Respondent OMC’s on 01.03.2025 for meeting the State wise requirement of Tank Trucks having capacity 18 MT and 21 MT for carrying the LPG from the manufacturing units to bottling plants.

7. For the State of West Bengal, the Respondent OMC’s floated NIT’s having No.’s LPG/BULK/TT/IOC/WB/2025-30, LPG/ BULK/TT/BPC/WB/2025-30 and LPG/ BULK/ TT/HPC/ WB/ 2025- 30 for the bulk LPG transportation contracts by road within the state. After the issuance of the said NIT, the Respondents issued 4 Corrigendum to the main tender.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, All India Bulk LPG Transporters Federation filed various representations dated 20.03.2025, 25.03.2025, 27.03.2025 before the Respondents for reconsideration of the tender conditions, however, no response is received yet.

9. Initially, the last date for the submission of the tender was fixed for 30.04.2025. Hence due to the urgency expressed by the Petitioner, the matter was taken up on mentioning and after preliminary hearing, the parties are directed to file their respective replies/written submission within 2 days. The respondents filed their affidavit in objection and the Petitioner filed his reply to the said objections. In the meanwhile, the Tender submission date was extended to 09.5.2025. Hence the matter was heard at length.

Argument on behalf of the Petitioner

10. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the tender under consideration is defective on account of four major grounds. Learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top