The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extension of a contract based on mutual consent and in accordance with the terms of the tender does not violate constitutional rights under Article 14 and 19 (1) (g).

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to impugned notice of extension LPG/BULK/TT/IOC/2018- 23/CONSENT-EXTN dated 11.023.2023 issued by the 1st respondent and ground the same directing the respondents to issue fresh “Upcoming Bulk LPG Transportation Tender 2023”.)

1. By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Mr. V.Anantha Natarajan, learned standing counsel takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.

3. The petition in W.M.P. No.10355 of 2023 filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition is ordered on payment of separate Court fees within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, failing which the order in the present petition would enure only to the benefit of the 1st petitioner.

4. The petition in W.M.P. No.10356 of 2023 filed to dispense with the original impugned notice is ordered as prayed for.

5. By the present petition, the petitioners assail the impugned notice in and by which the existing Bulk LPG transportation is sought to be extended by a further period of two years with a condition that it will be initially for a period of one year with two further extensions, if required and consent is sought for from the transporters.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the e-Tender invited by the respondents on 23.1.2018, which tender is for a period of five years from 1.9.2018 to 31.8.2023, pertaining to the southern region, the petitioner applied for the same under the quota of Stand Up India Scheme (for short ‘SUIS’) as the petitioner is a first generation entrepreneur. As per the conditions of the tender, the persons coming under SUIS, on being awarded the tender could be eligible only for providing 3 trucks as per Item IV Clause (ii) of the Notice Inviting Tender, while the other persons, who have been in the fray for long, on being awarded with the contract, would be entitled to provide trucks in the ratio of 1: 1, viz., self owner and owned by others. Further the persons belonging to SC/ST could quote their bid only at the floor rate finalised, which is the lowest price and all other bidders can quote price at their discretion within the price band.

7. The petitioners, being the successful bidders under the SUIS have been supplying three trucks to the respondents. In such a backdrop, all the successful bidders, who were supplying trucks to the respondents were called for a discussion on 5.9.2022 to discuss about the upcoming tender for the year 2023. However, it is the averment of the petitioner that in the discussion, the respondents had proposed extension of the ongoing contract for a further period of two years. The petitioners and other persons, similarly placed, opposed the said proposal on the ground that the extension by another two years without issuing fresh tender would impinge on their right of equal participation in providing transportation as the petitioners are providing trucks only at L1 rates as they fall under the SUIS.

8. It is the further averment of the petitioners that if new tender is floated, the petitioners would be able to compete in open category which would enable them to provide more trucks at the price fixed at their discretion and that there would be no embargo on quoting rates as per the floor rates. The extension of the contract causes grave prejudice to persons who fall under the SUIS category and, thereby it infringes and violates the constitutional right to carry on the occupation/trade as it puts unreasonable conditions to the freedom guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

9. It is the further averment of the petitioner that non-issuance of fresh tender upon the coming to an end of the old tender denies opportunity to the petitioners to be treated as equals as it denies the petitioner to compete in