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

2015 Supreme(Del) 20

High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.

Baroda Road Tankers & Another – Appellant
Versus
Deputy General Manager-Lpg North Zone Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others – Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos. 8776, 8435, 8568 of 2014, C.M. Nos.20152-20153, 19492, 19774 of 2014
Decided on: 06-01-2015

Advocate Appeared
Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Advocate with Naman Joshi, Jasmeet Singh, CGSC, Rajat Navet with Kushagra Pandit, Rohan Yadav, A.K. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Rahul Shukla, Rikesh Singh, Nakul Pathania, with T.S. Cheema, Sr. Manager, LPG Distribution (NZ), HPCL, Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ayush Agrawal, Shaan Mohan, Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Ajay Kalra, Yeeshu Jain, K.S.M. Vimal Kanth, Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Nishtha Sikroria, Advocates.

The court held that the tender conditions clearly required that the tank trucks offered should conform to the specifications mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the notification dated 18.10.1996. The court also held that the oil marketing companies could not dilute the standards spelt out in the notification, as they were neither the Central Government nor the registering authority.

Headnote:

TENDER - INTERPRETATION - LPG TANK TRUCKS - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 52 AND 58 - NOTIFICATION DATED 18.10.1996 - APPLICABILITY - TENDER CONDITIONS - COMPLIANCE - ARBITRARINESS - DISCRIMINATION - PUBLIC INTEREST - JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

Three writ petitions were filed challenging the rejection of bids for transportation of bulk Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) by road. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 8776/2014 (Baroda group) argued that the rejection of their bids on the ground of mismatch between the prime mover capacity and the trailer capacity was arbitrary. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 8435/2014 (Malik Group) and W.P.(C) 8568/2014 (Balwan Singh group) sought directions to reject tenders that did not conform to the prescribed specifications.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the tender conditions clearly required that the tank trucks offered should conform to the specifications mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the notification dated 18.10.1996. The court found that the oil marketing companies could not have sought to dilute the standards spelt out in the notification, as they were neither the Central Government nor the registering authority. The court also held that the insistence on a newly created condition amounted to hostilely discriminating those who never had the occasion to secure such documents on the one hand, and favourably treat those who managed to secure it beforehand and submit it with their tender bids, on the other.

Issues: 1. Whether the rejection of the Baroda group's bids was arbitrary and discriminatory? 2. Whether the oil marketing companies could dilute the standards spelt out in the notification dated 18.10.1996? 3. Whether the insistence on a newly created condition amounted to hostile discrimination?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rejection of the Baroda group's bids was not arbitrary and discriminatory, as the tender conditions clearly required that the tank trucks offered should conform to the specifications mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the notification dated 18.10.1996. 2. The court held that the oil marketing companies could not dilute the standards spelt out in the notification dated 18.10.1996, as they were neither the Central Government nor the registering authority. 3. The court held that the insistence on a newly created condition amounted to hostile discrimination, as it discriminated against those who never had the occasion to secure such documents on the one hand, and favourably treated those who managed to secure it beforehand and submit it with their tender bids, on the other.

Final Decision: The writ petitions of the Baroda group (W.P.(C) 8776/2014) failed. The other two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 8435/2014 and W.P.(C) 8568/2014) succeeded in part to the extent that the respondent oil marketing companies were directed to ensure that only those TTs which confirm strictly to the legal standards spelt out in the relevant notification (No. SO 728(E) dated 18.10.1996) are processed and awarded Letters of Intent (LoIs), in the tender process and all TTS which do not conform to such technical standards, are not awarded LoIs.

Judgment

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. These three writ petitions involve adjudication on common issues arising from the same facts, i.e. interpretation of tender no. LPG/LOGS/TT/ER/2014/A dated 01.09.2014 issued jointly by the three contesting respondents – hereafter referred to conveniently as “the oil marketing companies”. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 8776/2014 argue that the rejection of their bids on the ground that the mismatch between the prime mover capacity and the trailer capacity made the bid non-conforming, is arbitrary. The petitioners in this writ petition are referred to compendiously as “the Baroda group”. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 8435/2014 (hereafter called “the Malik Group”), on the other hand, assert that the oil marketing companies should strictly follow the tender conditions and reject the tanker contracts (TTs) which do not conform to the prescribed specifications. They seek consequent directions for quashing of actions taken towards accepting bids which are not in conformity with the tender specifications, so far. The writ petitioners in the third group, i.e. W.P.(C) 8568/2014 (hereafter called “the Balwan Singh group”) seeks directions to the oil marketing companies to reject the tenders submitted by the bidders quoting LPG tank trucks of 18 MT capacity attached with prime movers/trucks of 4018/4019 model coupled with two axle trailer. In addition, they seek rejection of bids of two tenderers who applied in the SC/ST quotas with certificates which were more than a year old calculated from the date of the tender advertisement.

2. Through a common advertisement, three the respondents, i.e., (hereafter called "the oil marketing companies" consisting of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd ("IOCL"); Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) invited electronic bids for transportation of bulk Liquefied Petroleum Gas ("LPG") by road. The electronic bids (e-tenders) invited consisted a Two-Bid system from bonafide bidders, willing to quote rates fulfilling advertised conditions, i.e.:

1. Owning at least One Bulk LPG / PROPANE tank truck ("TT") as on closing date of tender.

2. The age of the tank truck quoted being not more than 15 years as on 31.10.2014 from the date of first registration.

3. Tank Truck quoted possessing a valid license from Petroleum Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) as on closing date of tender.

3. The tender was advertised for Region/Zone wise requirements of the Oil Marketing Companies; the interested bidders had to quote rate for the Region / Zone as well as for each Company of their choice. Bidders had to meet the minimum qualification criteria, of the tender to participate in the process. However, induction of TTs was to be based on evaluation criteria of the tender. Furthermore, bidders had to upload particulars of all TTs offered, according to a prescribed format - in terms of Annexure-II at the time of submission of the e-tender. The TTs had to lift (pick up) the product from any or all of the sources of bulk LPG for transportation of bulk LPG by road in tank trucks, from loading locations as mentioned in the tender (Price bid and technical bid) to all bottling Plants/Customers (Ex- MI / Delivered) of the Oil Marketing Companies as well as for stock transfer of Auto LPG from supply sources to Bottling plants during the contract period. The contracts were to be valid for three years with effect from 01.11.2014 and extendable for two more years at the sole discretion of the Corporation(s) at the same terms and conditions. The tender provided for a yearly escalation of 3.25 % for the 4th year & 5th year on the non fuel component of the applicable rate (maximum 50% of rate) with formula mentioned in clause No.33 of Contract Agreement. The bidders offering single ready owned truck could offer one proposed owned truck and bidders offering more than one ready




























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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