IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29643 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.K.PAULOSE, MANAGING PARTNER M/S. K.K.PAULOSE, AMMINISSERIL KAKKAD.P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686664. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI. DIJO SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION), REPRESENTE BY THE CHIEF LPG MANAGER, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR.P.O., COCHIN-682036. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (DGM-LPG) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.(MARKETING DIVISION), KERALA STATE OFFICE PANAMPILLY AVENUE PANAMPILLY NAGAR.P.O., COCHIN-682036. BY SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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