IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 556 of 2026

M/S KATARE SALES AND SERVICE AMLAHA

Versus

INDIAN OIL CORPORTATION LTD.

Appearance:

Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aditya Adhikari - Senior Advocate with Shri Anannya Shree

Adhikari - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Vehicle Act 1988 particularly Sections 56 and 59 as the criteria ought to have been the fitness of vehicle and not the age. In case the said condition prevails, the petitioner will be debarred from participation in the tender and also would be rejected from the technical bid. Hence, this petition.

This petition has been filed challenging the condition No.11 of the

tender document which deals with age/mode of the tank truck offered shall

not exceed 14 years on the original closing date of tender submission.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has floated contract for IOC Cell Bakania requiring tank trucks (Oil Tankers) for road transportation of bulk petroleum products like MS/HHD/Branded Fuels etc. from Bulk Oil Storage to different locations in the state of Madhya Pradesh for a period of 3 years. It is submitted that the respondent/authority has inserted Condition No. 11 of the tender which deals with age/model of the tank truck offered which provides the age of tank truck offered shall not exceed 14 years on the original closing date of tender submission. The petitioner is challenging the said condition of tender on the ground that same is in violation of Motor

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Section 52(4) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides "In case of transport vehicles the validity of certificate of registration shall be co-terminus with the validity of certificate of fitness." Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with grant of fitness of transport vehicles and as per this provision, the vehicles are fit to ply on the route till validity of fitness certificate and registration certificate of vehicle. The criteria ought to have ben the fitness of the vehicle and not the age of the vehicle. It is further pointed out that the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Dr. Sandeep Jain Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No.2004/2017) decided on 26.07.2018 has observed that fixation of age can only be done by Central Government and not by any other authority under Section 59 of the Act. The last notification No.GSR 568(E), the only condition provided in the notification is regarding renewal of certificate of registration providing for motor vehicles older than 15 years but not exceeding 20 years for the date of first registration. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the tender document issued by the respondents then the Condition No.11 incorporated is per se illegal. Therefore, he prayed for deletion of such condition from the tender document.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents on advance notice has denied the aforesaid averments and it is contended that it is within the domain of the tender issuing authority to fix the age of the vehicle and to impose certain conditions as per their requirements. It is argued that the tank trucks are required for transportation of petroleum products. It is a highly sensitive material for which tank trucks in a proper condition are required to be provided, therefore, they have inserted such a condition. The transportation of petroleum products is to be done taking utmost care and caution as it is a highly inflammable product and any unwanted incident can result into huge damage or destruction. Therefore, all possible steps are required to be taken by the tender issuing authority that is the respondents for induction of such tank trucks for transportation of petroleum product, therefore, such condition has been inserted. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs. Centr