DR. B.R. SARANGI,J.

Smt. Sita Devi More, who is the partner of M/s. MORE TRADERS, Bhadrak, is the petitioner no.1 and Smt. Sujata Shaw, who is the proprietress of M/s. MEGHA FUELS, Balasore, is the petitioner no.2. Both M/s. MORE TRADERS, Bhadrak and M/s. MEGHA FUELS, Balasore are the dealers/transporters of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and registered as a Micro & Small Enterprises (MSE). By way of this writ petition, both the petitioners seek to quash the action of the opposite parties in denying them transportation contract despite being L-1 and further to issue direction to the opposite parties for issuance of Letter of Acceptance (LOA) in respect of their six numbers of Tanker Trucks (TT) (12-16 KL) Transportation Contracts, pursuant to e-Tender No.RCC/ERO/37/2020-21/PT-232 for Road Transporta-tion of Bulk Petroleum Products- MS/HSD/ Branded Fuels, Ex Location-Balasore Depot issued by opposite party no.2 (Operation Department) Odisha State Office, Bhubaneswar.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Marketing Division of opposite party no.1 floated e- Tender dated 19.03.2022 inviting bids from intending bidders for Road Transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products-MS/HSD/Branded Fuels. The petitioners, being the Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) owned by women entrepreneurs, applied for and participated in the bid process. As per terms and conditions of Notice Inviting Tender, every applicant (save and except SC & ST where it is two in number) has to be in possession and offer minimum of 3 nos. of Tanker Trucks for applying for transportation contract. In the said notice, the date of end of clarification was fixed to 26.03.2022, pre-bid meet was fixed to 27.03.2022, date of submission of tender was fixed to 13.04.2022 and the date of opening of bid was fixed to 14.04.2022. In compliance of the same, the petitioners were informed as L1 by opposite party no.1 on 02.06.2022. Despite L1, they were not issued with LOA and it was issued to other tenderers on 09.06.2022. On 13.06.2022, though the authorized representatives of the petitioners made query, but no satisfactory reply was received. Therefore, on 17.06.2022, petitioner no.1 wrote letter to opposite party no.3, but she did not receive any reply. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Ms. Mamta Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that MSME Development Act, 2006 and Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Orders, 2012 and 2018 mandate reservation of 25% for MSEs sector and 3% for female MSEs entities/participants. It is contended that both the petitioners, being only two female MSEs tenderers and additionally being adjudged as L1, non-issuance of LOA/contract in their favour is not only contrary to the procedure of law but flagrant violation of the Constitutional mandates as well as the MSME Act and the Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Orders, 2012 and 2018. It is further contended that in terms of MSEs quota/reservation for SC/ST candidates as well as women, if there are no such qualifying applicants, the same will flow to the General MSEs quota. Despite being L1, the petitioners have been denied issuance of LOA for having claimed preferential treatment under the womens’ quota and have not been awarded the contract. Therefore, the action of the authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that the petitioners are the transporters of IOCL and their vehicles are still plying under the existing contract, but they have been illegally and arbitrarily denied for issuance of LOA. It is also contended that if the statutes/orders/provisions made to enhance and ensure women’s participation and pursuant to the same, the petitioners participated and also found L1, non-issuance of LOA in their favour cannot sustain in the eye of law, as it is hit by the mandates of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is furth