ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner’s grievance is against the non-consideration of his tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been excluded from consideration on the ground that in his bid out of the eight trucks offered by him, one of the trucks was functioning under contract with M/s. Madhukar Road carriers, who, in turn, had a contract with M/s. Hindustan
Petroleum. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Nandrajog, submits that as per the tender conditions, petitioner’s bid could not have been excluded.
2. The relevant terms and conditions, as regards the present controversy, may be noticed :
(i) There is a prohibition on a bidder for quoting in respect of trucks which are under contract with either the corporation or other transporters.
(ii) The bidders were required to give an undertaking incorporating, inter alia, “that the vehicles under reference are not attached with any other contractor and have not been withdrawn without their written prior consent.
(iii) Clause 12 of the General Guidelines provided that “trucks which are already offered under contract to the Corporation at supply points not covered in this tender cannot be included in this contract unless expressly agreed to by the Corporation”.
3. Petitioner’s bid was accompanied by his letter dated 14th March, 2000, wherein in Clause 13, while giving details of his experience in trade, petitioner had stated as follows:
“I am one of your parallel contractor during the period from 1987 to 1990 and after that my vehicles are plying in same trade under attach category with M/s. Madhukar Road Carriers during the period 1991 to 1996 and then 1996 to till date plying with M/s. Triveni Road Carriers Private Limited.”
As per Annexure 8 of his bid, wherein the particulars of eight trucks, for which he had quoted, are given, there is no mention of one of the trucks being under contract with M/s. Madhukar Road Carriers.
4. Learned counsel urged before me that the petitioner was the lowest bidder and had quoted the lowest rates and yet he has been ignored because one of his trucks was operating as an “additional” truck with M/s. Madhukar Road Carriers. Counsel submits that he had submitted two certificates, dated 19th June and 20th June, 2000 respectively; to the effect that the
said truck was operating only as an “additional” truck and the transporter would have no objection to the same being withdrawn by the owner/petitioner as and when required. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation had also certified that the truck was operating under M/s. Madhukar Road Carriers and that petitioner had no contract with the Corporation and the Contractor M/s. Madhukar Road Carriers could decide on withdrawal/replacement of the vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid great emphasis on the provision prohibiting the bidder from quoting for a truck which was under contract with the Corporation or contained a condition was of having a contract with the Corporation or the vehicle was attached to another contractor. In this regard he submits that, undoubtedly, petitioner did not have any contract with the Corporation and although the truck was working for M/s. Madhukar Road Carriers as an additional truck, it could not be said that it was attached with the said contractor.
I have also heard Mr. Manmohan Kalra, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The last date for submitting the bid was 24th of March, 2000. It is pertinent to note that in the bid submitted it was not disclosed that one of the trucks was operating under M/s. Madhukar Road Carriers. The clarifications which have been furnished by the petitioner are post-bid clarifications. Mr. Kalra informs me that there are seven other cases of non-consideration of tenders where bidders’ vehicles were operating for other contractors.
7. Even though learned counsel has attempted to bring out a fine distinction of the vehicle operating as an additional truck and not being under attachment, the basic fact cannot be ignored that the vehicle was working under an arrangement with another transporter and, hence, could not be available without withdrawal. The rationale of the conditions imposed by the principals appears to be that the vehicles in respect of which the bid is submitted are unconditionally and freely available for the purposes of execution of the contract. In these facts and circumstances, I do not think a case is made out warranting interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.