Point of Law : Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:

“A writ of certiorari to quash the action of the respondent Corporation in issuing a supplementary detailed notice Tender No. 21000697-HD-10157 dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-8) to seeks to fill shortfall requirement in the original DNIT dated 23.07.2018, from third parties because firstly, the shortfall of tank trucks/requirement of additional tank trucks as may arise during the term of the earlier DNIT Tender No. 21000697-HD-10157 dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) till 30.09.2023 is supposed to filled through existing/ successful transporters, including the petitioners; secondly the DNIT No. 2, has been issued to open a back door for contractors who were either unsuccessful in DNIT No. 1 or did not participate at all or have been terminated in DNIT No. 1 because of malpractices; thirdly, the petitioners are not allowed to participate DNIT No. 2; fourthly, the tenderers who are already terminated, or nearing termination were already aware about this DNIT No. 2, much in advance and have got vehicles prepared much before the issuance of the DNIT so that they can participate in the DNIT No. 2 and which reflects the collusion of respondent no. 3 with the said participants; fifthly, the action of the respondent amounts to digression from the deviation from the terms of the DNIT dated 23.07.2018, which is against the law laid down in the case of W.B. S.E.B. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. 2001 (2) SCC 451.

And/or

A writ of mandamus/order/direction to the respondent corporation, to issue a notice for filing up the requirement, created on account of shortfall/additional requirement, through the existing transporters, including the petitioners and not through third parties.

And/or

During the pendency stay the consequential proceedings, in reference or pursuance to issuing a supplementary detailed notice Tender No. 21000697-HD-10157 dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-8).”

2. The facts setting the backdrop of the case are that respondent No. 1 issued Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (for short ‘DNIT’) dated 23.07.2018 for transportation of bulk POL products by road Ex-Nalagarh IRD. The working period as proposed in DNIT was 1.10.2018 to 30.09.2023. The anticipated volume to be moved for first three years and balance two years i.e. 4th and 5th years was prescribed as under:

3. Similarly, anticipated Tank Trucks (for short ‘TTs’) requirement for first three years and last two years i.e. 4th and 5th years was prescribed as under:

4. On the basis of criteria prescribed in DNIT, various transporters including the petitioners were awarded work. First three years of work period expired on 30.09.2021. During this period, three transporters, who were successful in DNIT, were blacklisted for their defaults. They lost the legal battle also and consequently ‘TTs’ as provided by such transporters were taken off the work resulting in additional requirement of TTs.

5. In order to fulfill the shortfall caused by the aforesaid exigency and also to cope up with the additional requirement, respond