IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2014 Between:
K. Jalender Reddy, Prop. M/s. KJR Transport Co., O/o. 4-9/2, Buddha Nagar, Peerzadiguda Village, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, Pin – 500 092.
.. Petitioner AND M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), Rep. by its Chief Terminal Manager, Phase-III, IDA, Cherlapally, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2014 ORDER:
Tender notification was issued on 03.10.2013 for providing Tank Trucks for transportation of bulk petroleum products with effect from 01.01.2014 or from any later date. The tender notice prescribes that respondent Corporation is in need of approximately 22 tank trucks with capacity of 12 KL and 125 tank trucks with capacity of 18 KL, 20 KL, 24 KL and above. The petitioner applied for provision of contract and offered five tank trucks, three owned by him and two on lease. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent Corporation has accepted two tank trucks and accordingly, orders were issued on 03.01.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he has five tank trucks with him and only two tank trucks were awarded contract for transportation of bulk petroleum products, the other three trucks would be idle, which would cause him irreparable loss and suffering. With a fond hope of getting a contract with the respondent Corporation, the petitioner has acquired five tank trucks. There is no justification not to accept other three trucks.
2. According to Clause 6 of the tender notification, the respondent Corporation reserves the right to accept or reject any or all the tenders in part or in totality, or to negotiate with any or all the tenderers. This shows wider discretion is reserved for the respondent Corporation and in exercise of their discretion, they have accepted only two trucks.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any illegality or irregularity in the selection process and no mala fides are attributed. He has not pointed out violations of the terms of tender notification nor the discriminatory manner of selection of others to the detriment of the petitioner. The only plea urged by the petitioner is that since he has made a provision for five tank trucks, but only two trucks were accepted by the respondent Corporation and the remaining tank trucks cannot be utilized for any other purpose, he would suffer irreparable hardship as huge money is spent on them and cannot be recouped by any other means. The said ground cannot be a reason for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters concerning awarding of contracts. It was only an invitation and merely because the petitioner offers more trucks, he cannot insist as a matter of course to accept all trucks offered by him. No such right vests in him merely because he participates in tender process. Therefore, there is no merit in the Writ Petition.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate authority of the respondent Corporation making such a request. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 15th April, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2014 Date: 15th April, 2014 KL