The rejection of a bid in a tender process should be based on merit consideration and qualification for allocation, and parties must plead and produce sufficient material to substantiate their case.

JUDGMENT

Murahari Sri Raman, J. - This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.

2. The petitioner, an unsuccessful tenderer, has sought for the following reliefs:

'Under the circumstances the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue notice of Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the rejection of petitioner's bid vide Annexure-1 should not be quashed as being illegal and arbitrary;

And upon the opposite parties not showing cause/or insufficient cause being shown, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash Annexure-1 for being illegal and null and void and the opposite parties and more particularly opposite party No.2 be directed to consider the petitioner's tender on merits subject to the petitioner meeting the other terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender and award him the work of transportation of IOCLs bulk petroleum products ex-IOCLs Bhubaneswar terminal;

And pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.'

3. The impugned Annexure-1 is the communication dated 19th November, 2021 of Indian Oil Corporation (in short, 'IOCL') through e-mail indicating the following:

'Government electronic Procurement evaluation for the tender Indian Oil Corporation eProcurement portal/Date 19-Nov-2021

Sub: Financial evaluation for the tender-reg

Dear user,

With reference to your bid submission for the following tender

Tender Id : 2021-ERO-137817-1

Tender Reference No. : RCC/ERO/37/2021-22/PT-46

Organisation Chain : Indian Oil//Marketing//Easternn Region Office//Contract cell

You are informed that your bid for the above tender has been rejected during financial evaluation by the duly constituted committee for the reason No Allocation of TT in the respective category as per Evaluation Criteria mentioned in the Tender Document.

In case of any clarifications or feed back, you may contact Tender Inviting Authority (TIA).

Tender Inviting Authority'

4. Shorn off details, the case of the petitioner runs as follows:

i. The petitioner, a continuing transporter of petroleum products of IOCL by tank trucks (referred to as 'TT') ex- Bhubaneswar, participating in the tender process in the General Category, submitted his bid for 6 TT in the ratio of 2:4 [2 of 12-14KL capacity and 4 of 18-40KL capacity] in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (for brevity, 'NIT') for Road Transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products- Motor Spirit/High Speed Diesel/Branded Fuels with location: Bhubaneswar Terminal.

ii. Prior to financial evaluation, his technical evaluation did find favour with, communication of which is to the following effect:

'Government electronic Procurement evaluation for the tender

Indian Oil Corporation eProcurement portal/Date 01-Nov- 2021

Sub: Technical evaluation for the tender-reg

Dear user,

With reference to your bid submission for the following tender

Tender Id : 2021-ERO-137817-1

Tender Reference No. : RCC/ERO/37/2021-22/PT-46

Organisation Chain : Indian Oil// Marketing// Eastern Region Office// Contract cell

You are informed that your bid for the above tender has been accepted during technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee.

In case of any clarifications or feed back, you may contact Tender Inviting Authority (TIA).

Tender Inviting Authority'

iii. As per Clause-22 of 'Tender Terms & Conditions' appended to Notice Inviting Tender vide Annexure-2, 'the Court of Jurisdiction till the placement of LoA is High Court of Kolkata and thereafter the High Court of Cuttack during the contract period'. However, in the case of Ganesh Movers & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. IOCL, WPA No.19365 of 2021, disposed of on 20.12.2021 challenge was laid before the High Court at Calcutta to the rejection of bid in respect of Jharsuguda Terminal on the fact of non- submission of Smart Card. The Single Bench of said Court held that 'The endorsement at the bottom o