IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29643 of 2009(A)
1. K.K.PAULOSE, MANAGING PARTNER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 29643 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, the learned senior advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. E.K.Nandakumar, the learned
standing counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation invited bids from persons who own
transport vehicles for appointment as transport contractors. One of the
conditions stipulated was that each tenderer should have at least three
trucks in their name. It was also stipulated that if the tenderer does not
have the minimum number of trucks, then his bid will not be considered.
Pursuant to the tender notice, the petitioner submitted his bid. As on the
last date for submission of the tender, namely 28.8.2009, the petitioner
had only two goods vehicles in his name. He had paid for a third vehicle
which had not been delivered to him or registered in his name. Therefore,
the petitioner’s bid was rejected on that ground and the decision
communicated to him by Ext.P5 letter dated 9.10.2009. In this writ
petition, the petitioner challenges the rejection of his bid on the grounds
stated in Ext.P5. He seeks a declaration that as he has paid for the third
vehicle, he has become the owner thereof and therefore the respondents
erred in rejecting his tender. He also challenges the other grounds stated
W.P.(C) No. 29643/09
2
in Ext.P5 namely that the credential bid and the price bid were received in
an open condition and that the partnership deed and PAN card were not
submitted.
3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that only
transport contractors who own three vehicles are eligible to participate in
the tender. The petitioner admittedly owned only two vehicles. Though he
had paid for the third vehicle, it had not been delivered to him as on
28.8.2009 and it was also not registered in his name. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the stand taken by the third respondent that the petitioner was
not the owner of three vehicles as on 28.8.2009 is arbitrary. Since the
petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility condition, I am of the opinion that
respondents were right in rejecting his bid. On that short ground, the
petitioner’s bid was liable to be rejected. I therefore find no reason to
interfere with the decision taken by the respondents to reject the
petitioner’s bid.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps
W.P.(C) No. 29643/09
3