IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 1620 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KERALA STATE PEROLEUM TRADERS' ASSOCIATION,REGISTER NO.R 547/2009, NARAYANEEYAM, GANDHI NAGAR, PANAMUKKU, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.KAMALAKSHAN. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.M.T.SHEEBA, SRI.P.A.RAJESH, SRI.K.RAKESH, SMT.VRINDA PAUL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., BHARAT BHAVAN, 4&6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, P.B.NO.688, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE AREA MARKETING MANAGER, B.P.C. LTD., IRUMBANAM, COCHIN. 3. THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) B.P.C. LTD., ERNAKULAM. 4. THE TERRITOR MANAGER (RETAIL), B.P.C. LTD. KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1620/2010 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE FORMAT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS DTD. 18/12/2009 TO ALL THE DEALERS AS 'EXPRESSION OF INTEREST'. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 1620 of 2010-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is Kerala State Petroleum Traders Association. The complaint raised in the writ petition mainly relates to clause (1) of Ext.P1 directing the members of the association to accept the L1 transportation rates arrived through the tender being floated during this year for the supply point by the company. It is pointed out that the compulsion to make such an undertaking will be detrimental to the interest of the dealers who are prepared to transport the petroleum products to the destination. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the Company, the contention by the petitioner that the first clause in Ext.P1 are highly arbitrary and unjust, has been denied. It is explained that a price band has been fixed and that too by competent, qualified and experienced senior officials of the company taking into account the previous difficulties faced by the Company due to extreme low and high rate quote. L1 rate, ie. the lowest quoted rate, is arrived at by public tender and negotiation. It is further explained in para 7 that L1 rate is applicable to all the persons engaged by the respondents Company for wpc 1620/2010 2 transportation of its products. 3. It is further explained by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Company that only a uniform rate has been adopted based on the tender as well as negotiation. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that if a uniform rate has been adopted, then there may not be a complaint as regards the same by the members of the association also. 4. This Court had passed an interim order on 18.1.2010 which was modified later by an order dated 28.7.2010. By the order dated 28.7.2010 it was clarified that “the respondents can continue the tender proceedings pursuant to the tender notice and award the contract. However, the decision regarding those who have been directed to submit Expression of Interest shall be kept pending.” 5. It is pointed out that out of the total members of the association, 94 members have already submitted Expression of Interest and only 7 persons remain to submit the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed that they also may be allowed to submit the Expression of Interest in the form prescribed, within a period of 10 days. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: The remaining members of the association who are yet to submit the wpc 1620/2010 3 Expression of Interest will submit the same within a period of ten days from today. The same also will be considered in the light of the fact that uniform rate has been accepted as far as the other contractors also. Such of those dealers will also be given the same rate as made applicable to the others and on acceptance of the same, they will be given the contracts for lifting the petroleum products for supply. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/