The court upheld that adherence to tender guidelines by public entities is essential, and allegations of impropriety must be substantiated for judicial intervention.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner asserts that Respondent No.2 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is bound by the guidelines issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. He therefore submits that a writ petition is maintainable.

1.1. Petitioner states that he has been engaged in the transport business under the name ‘Kore Manikya Rao Transport’ for several years and regularly provides heavy vehicles (tankers) for transportation of petroleum products for respondent Corporation and other companies. Pursuant to Tender Notification dated 04-06-2025 issued by Respondent No.2, requiring submission of tenders before 31-10-2025. Eligibility criteria at Running Page No.82 of the tender booklet requires a bidder to offer a minimum of five ready-built tank trucks, out of which at least three must be owned; if more than five vehicles are offered, at least 60% must be owned; booking slip TTs are permitted only beyond the minimum requirement and are not considered for sub-ranking. Since petitioner meets these criteria, it is stated, he submitted his bid.

1.2. Petitioner states that after participating in the pre- bid meeting, tenders were opened on 04-06-2025; he bid for 24 vehicles but was awarded only 11, without reasons, though the tender was for transportation of bulk petroleum products from 01-07-2025 or from the date of LOA for a period of five years. He relies on the Star Enterprises judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, asserting that rejection of tender bids must be supported by reasons and in this case, HPCL provided no explanation for rejecting the remaining vehicles. During evaluation, it is stated, Respondent No.2 deviated from tender conditions and favoured Respondent No.6, which had no registered vehicle on the date of tender finalization, as seen from the Registration Certificate dated 03-06-2025 of Smt. Mounika Goda. He claims that only a chassis number was submitted through a Certificate of Verification dated 02-06-2025 issued by Gujarat authorities.

1.3. Referring to Clause 44(1) of Tender Notification, which mandates rejection of trucks if false or incorrect information is found during techno-commercial evaluation, and cancellation of contract with forfeiture of EMD/Security deposit if discovered later, petitioner states that despite this mandatory clause, Respondent No.6’s documents were accepted. It is asserted that transparency is mandatory when the State or its instrumentalities handle commercial matters. He alleges that HPCL acted without transparency and favoured Respondents 5, 6 and 7, even though they did not meet eligibility criteria and allegedly submitted false, fake and fabricated documents including RC books. He therefore, submitted representation dated 11-10-2025, however, HPCL is proceeding to enter into agreements with Respondents 6 and 7.

1.4. It is further stated, legal action is required against the Selection Committee Members Naga Kiran (DGM), Rajeshwar Mushram, Swapna Lakavath, Tirupati Rao and Harilal as there is a possibility of collusion in allotting the tender based on what he describes as false, fake and fabricated RC books. Despite his representations, they have not taken any action and are allegedly tailoring the tender process to suit Respondents 6 and 7.

1.5. Petitioner therefore, requests this Court to direct respondent authorities to cancel the tender notification dated 04.06.2025 and to issue fresh tender notification, duly declaring the inaction of respondent authorities in conducting enqiry with regard to the illegalities and irregularitie