ASR 19.

Ct. no. 24. 07.05.2025 WPA 4082 of 2025 Gopal Naskar Vs.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ors.

Mr. Debabrata Saha Ray Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya Mr. Subhankar Das Mr. Sankha Biswas ……..For the Petitioner Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee Mr. Sobhan Kumar Pathak …..For the respondent ns. 1 to 9 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) flouted a tender for Transportation of Bulk POL Products MS/HSD and Branded fuels by Road EX Haldia Terminal for period of 5 years w.e.f. 01.01.2025 up to 31.12.2029.

The petitioner participated in the tender and he placed his own seven track tankers (TTs). It is pertinent to mention herein that petitioner has categorically informed during the participation that five out of seven TTs are engaged in contract with other oil marketing company i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL).

Petitioner became successful and provision letter of acceptance for issue in his favour on 23^rd of December, 2024.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has complied the formalities as stipulated in the letter of acceptance. He has placed all the TTs for physical verification; he has deposited the security deposit amount and also placed the documents pertaining to the TTs i.e. RC book, certificate, license and fitness certificate etc.

It is the further contention of the petitioner that he has signed the copy of agreement which was forwarded to him along with the letter of acceptance.

He submits that the respondent authority (HPCL) issued several reminders for completion of execution of agreement between HPCL and the petitioner.

It is further case of the petitioner though he has placed the signed agreement with the authority concerned but the authority concerned did not execute the agreement. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent authority has issued mail to the petitioner for submission of No objection certificate (NOC) in respect of 5 TTs which are attached with the IOCL.

Petitioner submits that the IOCL could not release the issue the NOC without agreement being executed / signed between HPCL and the petitioner. Thus, the NOC were not issued by the IOCL to the petitioner. Through a mail dated 22^nd January, 2025 HPCL authority directed the petitioner to place NOC in respect of attached TTs, in reply petitioner has issued a mail to the HPCL containing that without execution of the agreement, the NOC of the attached TTs could not be submitted. However, a further reminder was served upon the HPCL dated 7^th February, 2025 for execution of the agreement. Finally on 7^th February, 2025 the letter of acceptance issued in favour of the petitioner stand cancelled.

Mr. Debbrata Saha Ray, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the act and action of the respondent authority is unreasonable. He submits that from the letter of acceptance it would be revealed that prior to the execution of agreement, NOC of attached TTs are not required. He specifically submits that the NOC is required to be placed at the time of induction. It is further contention of the Mr. Saha Ray that the letter of acceptance has specifically enumerated the date when the agreement has to be executed. He submits that from the mails of the concerned authority it would be revealed that at the time of verification, the petitioner has placed all the 7 TTS which were physically verified within a week from the date of issuance of LOA. The petitioner has also deposited the security amount but the respondent authority did not execute the agreement though it has been signed and forwarded by the petitioner to the authority concerned.

It is further case of the petitioner that the impugned letter of cancellation and provisional letter of acceptance referred to general tender terms and condition clause no. 19A of the tender. He submits that the clause 19A of the tender document specifically denoted that an agreement has to be executed within

15 days from the date of issue of LOA.

The petitioner pleaded specifically in