2021 Supreme(HP) 50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
M/s Vikrant Oil Carrier - Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & others - Respondents
CWP No.628 of 2019
Decided On : 04-01-2021

Headnote:

Legal Metrology General Rules, 2011 – Rule 14 – Right to Information Act – Tender Notice – Requirement of calibration certificates – Forged Calibration – By way of this petition, petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for reliefs writ in nature of mandamus seeking a direction to comply with eligibility criterion as prescribed in tender notice and strictly enforcing requirement of calibration certificates, which is an essential document in light of the fact that petitioner has received categorical information under Right to Information Act that tank trucks tendered by private respondents as mentioned in Annexure P-9, have not been issued calibration certificates on alleged date of inspection yet they have been selected wrongly – Direct that a proper enquiry be conducted into matter of validity/ truthfulness of alleged calibration certificates tendered by private respondents as tabulated in Annexure P-9, because same are prima facie invalid in light of information supplied to petitioner and hence said tank trucks deserved to be rejected out rightly since they were open bodied tank trucks which could not have been tendered at all as per DNIT – Direct that bid/tender of private respondents be cancelled in view of forged/fictions calibration certificates so provided by them and deviation from the D.N.I.T. is arbitrary, illegal and unfair as held in case of W.B. S.E.B. V. Patel Engineering Ltd. 2001 2 SCC 451. – Direct official respondents to permit petitioner to replace two tank trucks of 12 KL with 2 tank trucks of higher capacity as per Clause 5 and in reference to application of petitioner – Stay issuance of any work orders to tank trucks in question until an enquiry/inspection of said tank trucks is carried out in accordance with discipline guidelines, which contemplate/permit an inspection by Oil Company since calibration shall surely vary as the figures quoted in calibration certificates are dummy figures and not actual figures – Held, Only conclusion which can be arrived at is that calibration certificates appended with tender form by private respondents, on strength of which their tenders were accepted by respondents No.1 and 2, were procured ones as tanks of private respondents never actually visited calibration facility of respondent No.7, nor they underwent any calibration procedure on strength of which calibration certificates could have been issued to said tanks – Court is aware of its limitations while deciding disputed questions of fact in its writ jurisdiction. – Contention of petitioner that tanks of private respondents never visited the calibration facility of respondent No.7, undoubtedly is a question of fact which in their respective replies has been denied by the private respondents. – However, as no material has been placed on record by respondents No.3 to 5 to demonstrate that tank trucks in issue ever visited calibration facility of respondent No.7 and further, as respondent No.7 in its reply has nowhere expressly mentioned that tank trucks visited its calibration facility for purpose of calibration verification, therefore, in peculiar facts of this case, this question of fact does not becomes seriously disputed question of fact when annexures on record placed by petitioner and record produced by respondents No.6 and 7 corroborates fact that tank trucks of private respondents never visited calibration facility of respondent No.7 for calibration verification on dates in issue – Petition Allowed