The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with tender terms and conditions, the burden of proof in procurement processes, and the application of the public trust doctrine in the context of transportation of petroleum products.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner and private respondents No.2 to 5 are in the business of ferrying fuel from the depot of respondent No. 1, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "HPCL") to its retail outlets. HPCL invited digital e-tenders to transport bulk white petroleum products through road, with effect from 01.10.2018 till 30.09.2023 vide DNIT, Annexure P-1. As per the bid inviting tenders, the successful tenderer, within fifteen days of the issuance of the LOA/work order, had to produce the tank trucks for physical inspection of HPCL. The petitioner as well as the private respondents participated in the said bid. HPCL awarded the tender and issued LOA to the private respondents. Challenging the award of the tender, the petitioner came up before this Court seeking to set aside the LOA and subsequent actions, on the grounds that the calibration certificates of tank trucks were procured in connivance of the sixth respondent, the Inspector, Legal Metrology Department, without any physical calibration actually taking place.

2. The petitioner's grievance was that HPCL did not stick to the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender notice, Annexure P-1. The petitioner sought strict enforcement of the requirements of calibration certificate on the ground that calibration certificates issued to private respondents were procured without following procedural requirements and, in fact, were managed. The essential condition of the tender was the submission of attested copies of valid calibration certificates apart from other documents. In brief, the material allegation was that the tank trucks of private respondents were never physically examined. In contrast, the calibration certificates had been generated in connivance with the sixth respondent, without any physical verification. Consequently, the petitioner sought cancellation of the bid documents submitted by private respondents. The petitioner also insisted upon an inquiry to ascertain truthfulness of the calibration certificate as mentioned in Annexure P-9.

3. The petitioner's additional prayer was that after prohibiting the private respondents' tank trucks, HPCL was under a contractual obligation to replace the similar trucks available with the petitioner.

4. The Respondent No.1, HPCL, filed a detailed reply, and the relevant portion is extracted as follows: -

(i) That the HPCL had issued a tender, which was published on 23.07.2018. The technical evaluation of the tender was uploaded on 22.09.2018 and commercial evaluation was completed on 15.10.2018. After that letters of allotment were given on 17.12.2018.

(ii) The requirement to participate in the bid was 135 Tank Trucks with capacity 18,000 ltrs. (18kl and above); and 48 Tank Trucks with capacity between 12,000 ltrs. and less than 18,000 ltrs. (12kl and less than 18kl).

(iii) HPCL received offer from 645 Tank Trucks in both the categories, out of which, 606 Tank Trucks were technically qualified against the requirement of 183 Tank Trucks.

(iv) In the category of 18Kl and above, HPCL received offer of 586 Tank Trucks, out of which, 548 Tank Trucks were technically qualified. The requirement under the said category was 135 Tank Trucks.

(v) The tender process was finalized and induction process of Tank Trucks was in progress. As such, to say whether there would be a shortage of Tank Trucks so as to offer the short trucks to the petitioner would be a subsequent stage. The respondent also referred to Clause 5(d) of the tender, which specifically states that replacement of existing Tank Trucks shall be strictly subject to business requirement of location.

(vi) Regarding fictitious calibration certificates, the stand of HPCL is that they had evaluated the bid by checking the certificates issued by statutory bodies like RTO, PESO and Legal Metrology. It is further clarified that at the time of technical evaluation, HPCL only checked the scanned copies of the certificates for prima facie satisfac