IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22064 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ------------------- PARUMALA TRANSPORT, TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS AND CARGO MOVERS, CHIYYARAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 026, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER BINOY ALEX. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.C.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S) : -------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LPG. 2. CHIEF MANAGER - E & P (LPG), HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN BUILDINGS, NO.1, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008. 3. PLANT MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, EX-IRIMPANAM BOTTLING PLANT, IRIMPANAM-682 309. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI. K.JOHN MATHAI SRI. P.BENNY THOMAS SRI. P.GOPINATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : NS W.P.C. NO. 22064/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : COPY OF GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2009. EXT. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27/7/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P6 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/9/2010 ALONG WITH THE REVISED RATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P7 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 9/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P8 : COPY OF FRESH REDUCED RATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 22/11/2010. EXT. P9 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/1/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P10 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 16/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE NS P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22064 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pursuant to a tender notification issued by the first respondent Corporation for transportation of packed LPG cylinders from Irimpanam LPG plant the petitioner submitted his tender in respect of 4 trucks, 3 trucks of 300 cylinder capacity and one of 450 cylinder capacity. It was stated in the notification inviting tenders (clause L of the General Terms and Conditions) that the Corporation's total requirement of trucks is approximately 49 trucks of 300 cylinders carrying capacity and 10 trucks of 450 cylinders carrying capacity. The petitioner's offer was accepted and Ext.P2 letter of intent dated 20.10.2009 was issued, but he was requested to position 4 trucks of 300 cylinders capacity. The petitioner, who did not own 4 trucks of 300 cylinders capacity but only 3 trucks of 300 cylinders capacity and one truck of 450 cylinders capacity, thereupon submitted Ext.P3 representation to the Executive Director of the first respondent Corporation for induction of the 450 cylinders capacity truck. Upon receipt of W.P(C).No.22064 of 2011 -:2:- Ext.P3 representation the Executive Director gave Ext.P11 reply dated 17.6.2010 wherein it was stated that the offer made by the petitioner to operate a 450 cylinders capacity truck was not accepted as the rates were not found reasonable. The petitioner was however informed that he can use the 450 cylinders capacity truck to transport 300 cylinders, if it is acceptable to him, at the rates awarded for 300 cylinders capacity truck. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P4 representation dated nil once again seeking permission to induct the 450 cylinders capacity truck. The petitioner was thereupon called to attend negotiations at the Zonal Office of the first respondent Corporation at Chennai. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy General Manager of the first respondent Corporation in the Zonal Office at Chennai and submitted Ext.P6 representation. He also revised the rates quoted by him in the original tender. The petitioner had initially quoted Rs.14.99 per cylinder upto 100 kms., Rs.12.66 per cylinder beyond 100 kms., within the State and Rs.11.14 per cylinder on inter-state routes. He lowered the rates to Rs.9.55, Rs.8.36 and Rs.8.45 respectively. Thereafter he was again called to attend negotiations at Chennai as can be seen from Ext.P7. The petitioner thereupon brought the rates further down to Rs.9.45, Rs.8.28 and Rs.8.36 respectively. Even thereafter no final W.P(C).No.22064 of 2011 -:3:- decision was taken on the representation. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P10 representation requesting the Executive Director of the first respondent Corporation to accept the rates offered by him and to permit him to induct the 450 cylinders capacity trucks for transportation of LPG cylinders. It is stated that the rates offered by the petitioner in respect of the 450 cylinders capacity truck are much lower than the rates offered in respect of 350 cylinders capacity trucks and there is no reason why he should not be permitted to induct the 450 cylinders capacity truck at the rates mentioned in Ext.P10. 2. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance. They also filed a statement dated 27.10.2011 wherein it is stated that though tenders had been invited for trucks having 450 cylinder capacity, the response was poor, that only two persons submitted tenders for 450 cylinders capacity trucks, that the petitioner was called for negotiations to explore the possibility of reduction in rates but the reduced rates offered by the petitioner were also not found acceptable and therefore, no letter of intent was issued for the 450 cylinders capacity truck. The aforesaid statement is dated 27.10.2011. It does not refer to the offer made by the petitioner in Ext.P8 letter dated 22.11.2010 which was reiterated in Ext.P10 representation W.P(C).No.22064 of 2011 -:4:- dated 16.3.2011. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the competent authority among the respondents should examine the offer made by the petitioner in Exts.P8 and P10 representations and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously. In view of the fact that the period of the contract will expire within another 11 months, I am of the opinion that a decision on Exts.P8 and P10 should be taken expeditiously and in any event within one month. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority in the first respondent Corporation to consider the offer made by the petitioner in Exts.P8 and P10 representations and take an appropriate decision on the question whether the offer made by the petitioner to transport LPG cylinders using the 450 cylinders capacity truck should be accepted or not, expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Executive Director of the first respondent Corporation. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.22064 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 22nd November, 2011