JUDGMENT :

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Bulk LPG Transport Contractors Association Eastern India (hereinafter referred to the said Association) and its functionary challenging the judgment dated 6^th May, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition WPA No. 8748 of 2025. The said writ petition was preferred primarily challenging three tender notices issued by the respective oil companies being the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the OMCs). The said writ petition was heard along with another writ petition being WPA 9056 of 2025. Initially by an order dated 24^th April, 2025 the learned Single Judge directed the parties to exchange their affidavits after recording the contentious issues urged by the writ petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the parties exchange their affidavits and thereafter the said writ petitions were finally heard and dismissed by the judgment impugned in the present appeal.

3. As the last date for submission of bids has been scheduled on 12^th May, 2025 upto 3.00 p.m. and as all the pleadings exchanged by the parties before the learned single Judge have already been annexed to the stay application, the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

4. Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the tenders were floated for the purpose of awarding bulk LPG transportation contracts by road within the State of West Bengal inviting applications from 18 Metric Ton Tank Truck (hereinafter referred to as MT TT) and 21 MT TT owners. The clauses in the said tender notices are arbitrary and have been designed to grant benefit to certain contractors to the exclusion of the rest. The said clauses defeat the purposes of fair play and level playing field.

5. Drawing our attention to a corrigendum annexed at page 143 of the stay application, Mr. Bandopadhyay submits that the clause pertaining to ‘Truck Allocation Order’ is saddled with a condition that ‘Subject to finalized 21 MT rates lower than finalized 18 MT rates and state registered trucks quoting at floor rates’. The schedule rate chart annexed at page 39 of the stay application would reveal that the bid of 18 MT TT owner can never be below the 21 MT TT owner and as a consequence thereof, a 18 MT TT owner is deprived of an opportunity to submit any bid below the bid of a 21 MT TT moreso when clause VII of the notice at page 60 of the stay application provides, inter alia, that the Bench Mark Rate (hereinafter referred to as BMR) should be quoted strictly between the minimum and the maximum band for all slabs of +/-5% only. A composite perusal of the said clauses would thus reveal that the 21 MT TT owners are being preferred and such fact stands admitted by the OMCs. It would thus be explicit that the terms of the invitation to tender are tailor-made to suit the convenience of a particular class.

6. He further argues that initially in the tender documents it was specified that ‘if the bidder does not have minimum one OWN truck, then the bid of such bidder will not be considered’. However, subsequent thereto, a corrigendum was issued wherein it was, inter alia, provided that the persons with whom the owners of the TT enter into an agreement, the said intending purchasers on the basis of such agreement would also become eligible to participate in the process. Such corrigendum is ex facie illegal in as much as even a person who is not the owner of a vehicle would be getting an avenue to participate in the tender process.

7. He contends that the clause pertaining to ‘Reserved Trucks Quantities’ annexed at pages 55 and 56 of the stay application would reveal that in the event SC/ST participants are not available then such vacancies would be allotted to the unreserved category participants and as a consequence thereof, th