Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2432
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
S.V. Transport Services, Rep by its Proprietor, Chennai
Versus
The Deputy General Manager ( I/C ) L/C, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.23244 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On: 28-04-2011
For the Petitioner:Mr. J. Abdul Hadi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. P.S. Sivasubramaniam, Advocate.
The authority of the Department of Legal Metrology in determining the capacity of vehicles under the Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Tender Disqualification - Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 - [Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985] - [Summary: The court considered the disqualification of the petitioner's tender bid due to the capacity of the trucks offered. The court analyzed the documents provided by the petitioner and the legal provisions under the Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case based on the documents and the actual capacity of the vehicles, emphasizing the authority of the Department of Legal Metrology in determining the capacity of the vehicles.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking the opening of the price bid submitted in a tender for Bulk Lubes Transportation Contract, which was disqualified by the respondents based on the capacity of the trucks offered.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case based on the documents and the actual capacity of the vehicles.
Issues: Disqualification of petitioner's tender bid based on the capacity of the trucks offered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the authority of the Department of Legal Metrology in determining the capacity of the vehicles and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case based on the actual capacity of the vehicles.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed off with the direction for the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case based on the actual capacity of the vehicles.
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to open the price bid submitted by the petitioner in Tender No.LBP/ S&D/PT-01/2010 – 11/Bulk Lubes and to consider the same, as per the guidelines given in the tender application and to pass appropriate orders.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying on a business of transport under the name and style "S.V.Transport Service" for the past 20 years and also has a considerable experience in the field of Oil transportation. Whileso, the respondents called for tender for Bulk Lubes Transportation Contract, Chennai in Tender No.LBP/S&D/PT-01/2010-2011/Bulk Lubes.
3. Complying with the terms and conditions stated in the tender form, the petitioner has applied for participating in the tender, by enclosing a demand draft for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards E.M.D. The petitioner also offered four trucks bearing 20 KL capacity, which are owned by him. The trucks offered by the petitioner are quite suitable to meet out the requirements of the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner is having adequate experience in the filed of transportation of Oil and Lubes and his tender offer is perfect in consonance with the tender invitation, his tender offer should be the best offer towards the tender. The credential bids were opened on 27.08.2010 and the trucks offered by the petitioners were physically verified along with the original documents and the respondents also found that all the four trucks are eligible for opening the price bids.
5. But, subsequently, it was mentioned that the petitioner is not qualified for the credential bid. The only reason stated by the respondents is that the petitioner's trucks are not having 20 KL capacity and hence, they disqualified the petitioner from participating in the credential price bid. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, a document certified by the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, which shows that the petitioner's Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN.05/AD-5538, Chassis No.MAT466401 AZB04448, Engine No.6BTAA5901B62842700, is having 20 KL capacity.
7. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that all the trucks produced by the petitioner are having the capacity of 20 KL only. Whileso, carried away by the licence issued by the Explosives Department, which shows that the total capacity of the Vehicles are having 24 KL, the respondents have wrongly rejected the price bid submitted by the petitioner.
8. The respondents have filed their counter. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that when the tender invitation specifically mentions that as per Clause 5.14 of special terms and conditions, the following criteria are to be met by the tenderer, and to qualify the credential bid, the petitioner has to file/produce following the photocopy of the documents along with credential bid viz., R.C Book, ii) Valid Permit for Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry iii) Valid Explosives License iv) Valid Fitness Certificate vi) Valid Insurance Certificate vii) Affidavit/Lease agreement duly notarised in case of attached/leased truck viii) Registered Partnership Deed in case of Partnership firm ix) Copy of certificate of incorporation in case of Limited Company. On verification of the documents, it was found that the petitioner has offered four tank trucks with capacity of 24 KL, whereas the respondent has called for tender with respect to 11 KL / 12 KL under B1 category and 18 KL / 20 KL under B2 category and since the petitioner has offered 24 KL Tank Truck, he has become disqualified, as per clause 5.14 of the special terms and conditions. Further, the capacity of 24 KL of Tank Truck cannot
