ORDER:

Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Sata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Satya Siva Darshan, learned Standing Counsel for Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited for

2nd respondent herein.

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to condition No.20.11 of tender schedule No.K16SC21011, dated 24.12.2021. The 2nd respondent-Corporation issued a tender notification on 24.12.2021, inviting tenders for hiring of services of 141 pooled vehicles including five (5) electrical vehicles and five shift vehicles on regular monthly basis for a period of three (3) years. According to the petitioner with an intention to pursue self employment by hiring cars to the respondent-corporation, he contacted certain financial institutions from whom he could get financial assistance to purchase one or two cars. According to the petitioner he is the intending bidder in response to the subject tender notification. The impugned clause No.20.11 of the tender documents deals with the fair wage policy of ONGC with certain components and the said clause No.20.11 (I)

stipulates in the following manner;

“Day rate charges based on applicable minimum wages (AMW) for the specific period for skilled workers (For Construction and maintenance of roads and building operations, as per rates notified from time to time) are to be taken considering 26 days in a month. One skilled driver is to be considered for 09 Hrs duty vehicle & two skilled workers (drivers) are to be considered per vehicle for 24 Hrs. duty.”

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said clause incorporated in the tender notification of the respondents is in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 in general and Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the said legislation in particular.

Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri D. Satya Siva Darshan, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent- Corporation, on receipt of instructions from the 2nd respondent-Corporation, submits that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner herein is liable to be dismissed on two counts. They are: (1) the petitioner herein is not even an intending bidder as he did not register himself as vendor/bidder in order to participate in the tender process, which is mandatory as per clause No.9.0 of the tender conditions. (2) the petitioner herein lacks locus standi to file the present writ petition as the petitioner herein does not have the requisite eligibility of two years minimum experience in providing the vehicles, which is also mandatory as per Clause B.1.3 (a) of Annexure IV of the bid documents. In order to examine the merits in the writ petition, it may be appropriate to refer to Clause 9.0 of the tender conditions.

Clause 9.0 of the tender conditions obligates the interested bidders to create their bid online after registering against the tender in the ONGC e-Procurement website https://etender.ongc.co.in and the tender is to be submitted in the ONGC’s e-Procurement SRM system only.

In the instant case, according to the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent as many as 20 intending bidders got themselves registered as bidders/vendors and on 13.1.2022 a pre-bid conference was arranged, wherein the said 20 intending bidders also participated and the petitioner herein did not participate in the pre-bidding conference. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel that in response to the querries asked by the intending bidders including the clarification on the subject clause, the respondent-corporation authorities gave a reply and none of the said participants in the said conference did raise their objection so far. Coming to the 2nd objection taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, as per clause B.1.3 (a) of Annexure-IV, which deals with bid evaluation criteria, the petitioner herein admittedly does not fulfil minimum qualification criteria of two (2) years experience in the relevant field and the same would