The court emphasized that the respondent corporation did not breach the terms and conditions of the contract and that the writ petition was not maintainable. Additionally, the court clarified the jurisdictional issues related to challenging the tender notification.

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition assailing the tender notification dated 22.01.2016 issued by the second respondent, by which, the second respondent invited applications for supply of additional tank, trucks for South Central Zone for Transportation of Bulk Liquefied Petroleum Gas (in short LPG).

2. The case of the petitioner, which are essential for disposal of this writ petition is as follows:-

(i) The petitioner is a registered association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 which was formed to promote and protect the welfare of their Members, who are Tank Truck Owners which are designed solely for the purpose of transporting LPG. According to the petitioner, the Oil Corporations in India such as Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited dealing with various oil products and suppliers of LPG invited sealed tenders during 2014 for transportation of bulk LPG by road zone-wise namely Northern Zone, Eastern Zone, Western Zone, Southern Zone and North-East Zone. The period of contract was for three years from 01.11.2014. The petitioner association possessing Tank Trucks had participated in the tender and the tender of the petitioner association was accepted for the rates as prescribed by the first respondent. The members of the petitioner association have been supplying the Tank Trucks as required in the work order. According to the petitioner, in clause 20 of the notice inviting e-tender, the corporation reserved it's right to negotiate with the bidders in case of requirement of tank truck was not met from the established L-1 bidder. The above clause also provided that negotiations/counter-offer exercise will be conducted with the balance bidders in the original order of ranking as mentioned in the evaluation criteria of tender to the full tank truck requirement is met. As per the general terms and conditions of tender, the requirement of the first respondent was 843 tank trucks. As per clause 4(ii)(g) if the full requirement of tank trucks was not met, the Corporation reserved it's right to accept more trucks at L1 rates from the bidders in the original order of ranking. Thus, if the first respondent has any further requirement of additional tank trucks, they can only negotiate with the bidders seeking for additional tank trucks. Further, as per clause 24 of the general terms and conditions of the tender, if, during the period of contract, due to business requirement, the corporation decides to hire more tank trucks over and above the tank trucks accepted in the tender, the contracting corporation would be free to hire additional trucks from the existing contractors at a rate not higher than the existing rates and the trucks so hired should not be running under contract with any other corporation.

(ii) According to the petitioner association, in anticipation of such additional requirement, their members have kept additional trucks ready to meet any such situation. In fact, during November 2015, the first respondent also requested the successful bidders for additional tank trucks and the petitioner association has provided 80 additional tank trucks to meet out the requirements of the first respondent/Corporation.

(iii) While the facts are so as stated above, one of the oil Corporations namely Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Eastern Region invited e-tenders on 21.07.2015 indicating the requirement of additional tank trucks without calling the existing bidders for negotiations. Challenging the validity of the same, Bulk LPG Transport Contractors Association (West Bengal), Kolkatta and others have filed WP No. 18564 (W) of 2015 before the Kolkatta High Court. Yet another writ petition in WP No. 30283 (W) of 2015 was filed by one Satish Kumar of Visakapattinam. Both the writ petitions were taken up for hearing and on 10.08.2015 and 23.12.2015, interim stay was granted in the above two writ petitions. Aggrie