Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Rajputana Transport Company, Through Its Proprietor- Bhanwar Singh Champawat, S/o. Shri Malam Singh Champawat - Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Nodal Officer and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5469 Of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Joshi Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Rathore.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G. with Ms. Dimple Rajpurohit, Mr. Nishant Bora, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit with Mr. Mudit Nagpal.
IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of constructive res judicata applies to writ proceedings, preventing parties from re-litigating issues that could have been raised in prior litigation.
Headnote:
CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - TENDER PROCESS DISPUTE - Clause 21 of Tender Document, PESO License Regulations - The court discussed the principle of constructive res judicata, emphasizing that issues that could have been raised in previous litigation cannot be re-litigated. The court interpreted Clause 21 of the tender document, which required valid PESO licenses at the time of bid submission, and concluded that the clarification letter from PESO was valid and binding, influencing the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the issuance of Letters of Intent (LOIs) to respondents 2 and 3 by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for not having a valid PESO license at the time of bid submission, as required by the tender document. The petitioner previously filed a writ petition against the work orders issued to the respondents, which was dismissed. The current writ petition seeks to challenge a clarification letter from PESO that deemed the licenses issued to respondents 2 and 3 as permanent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the clarification letter dated 20.05.2022 was already considered in the earlier writ petition, and the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge it but did not. The court held that the principle of constructive res judicata applied, preventing the petitioner from raising the same issues again.
Issues: Whether the clarification letter from PESO could be challenged in the current writ petition despite being part of the previous litigation, and whether the respondents were disqualified from the tender process due to lack of a valid PESO license at the time of bid submission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that issues that could have been raised in previous litigation cannot be re-litigated under the principle of constructive res judicata. The court also confirmed that the PESO's clarification letter was valid and that the respondents' licenses were deemed permanent, thus not violating the tender requirements.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the PESO clarification letter and the issuance of LOIs to respondents 2 and 3.
ORDER :
(Rekha Borana, J.) :
1. The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
i. LOIs issued to the respondent No.2 and 3 in respect of notice inviting tender NO.RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22 may kindly be quashed and set aside
ii. By an appropriate writ/order/direction clarification letter dated 20/5/22 (Annx 2) may kindly be quashed and set aside
iii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent corporation to issue LOI/work order in favour of the petitioner.
iv. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent corporation to issue LI/work order in favour of the candidate/firm who is next in line of waiting.
v. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent corporation not to consider discrepancy letter dated 1/11/21 (Annx 8) as PESO Licence.
vi. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to initiate a proper enquiry against the erring officials and the Respondent No. 4 because of which respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 were illegally issued LOIs;
vii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to disqualify the respondent No.2 and 3 from future bidding and further directing the respondent No.1 to consider afresh the bid of the petitioner along with other bidders;
viii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed to petitioner;
ix. Costs of the petition may be awarded to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts are that in pursuance to an NIT issued by the respondent – Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘IOCL’), after completion of the tender process, the work orders were issued in favour of respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the month of May 2022. A writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6816/2022 was preferred by the present petitioner challenging the said work orders. The ground raised in the said writ petition was that respondent Nos.2 & 3 did not have a valid Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (hereinafter referred to as ‘PESO’) Licence on the date of submission of bid and hence, in terms of Clause 21 of the bid/tender document, they ought to have been disqualified. However, the Writ Petition as preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2023 and a Special Appeal being D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.787/2023 was preferred against the same. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the following observations:
“After attempting to argue the matter on merits for quite some time, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he wants to withdraw this appeal with liberty to the appellant to challenge the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the respondent Nos. 6 & 7.
The Spl. Appeal Writ is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, if law permits to do so.”
3. In view of the alleged liberty granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench to challenge the order dated 20.05.2022, the present writ petition has been preferred.
4. The case of the petitioner is that as per Clause 21 of the bid/tender document, the tank trucks quoted in the tender document ought to have valid documents such as PESO Licence, RTO registration certificates etc. at the time of submission of bids. The said clause further prescribed that temporary PESO permission will not be considered in LOT-1 and LOT-2 during the evaluation of the tender.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the respondent-firms did not have a valid PESO Licence at the time of applying and it was only on 15.11.2021 that a valid PESO Licence was granted to them. In absence of any valid PESO Licence, their bid could not have been evaluated and as a consequence, no LOA could have been issued in their favour.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the earlier writ petition as preferred by the petitioner was rejected only on the count that
