IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 36500 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ALL KERALA FEDERATION OF PETROLEUM TRADERS, 41.2801, MARUTI BUILDINGS, OFF. PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY. 2. MATHEWS K.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, J&J AUTO FUELS, IOC DEALERS, PERUMTHURUTHI, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. ROY MATHEW, PROPRIETOR, POYANIL FUELS, IOC DEALERS, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SMT.SHERLY SAJI, PARTNER, PRATHEESH FUELS, I.O.C DEALER,ADOOR. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, MR.BRIJESH MOHAN, SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN, MR.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 036, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER. BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.V.J.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 36500 of 2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The writ petition is filed challenging various tender conditions provided in Ext.P4 with regard to the eligibility criteria in respect of tender for road transportation of bulk petroleum products. The first petitioner is an association of authorized dealers of public sector oil companies in the State. Petitioners 2 to 4 are dealers of the respondent which is a public sector oil company. The petroleum products like petrol, diesel are transported from filling stations of oil companies to dealership outlets through tank trucks on the basis of the contracts awarded by the respondent company. Exts.P1 to P3 are judgments rendered by this Court in earlier occasions, whereby it was held that tanker lorries belonging tot he dealers having contract with Oil companies can be used for transporting diesel and petrol to various outlets. 2. In Ext.P4, there is a condition as clause IV(4) to the effect that the tenderer should offer minimum 5 TTs of which 2 TTs should be owned by them. It is also mentioned in clause 16 of Ext.P4 that the they should give wpc36500 /2009 2 an undertaking that neither tenderer nor any tank truck offered are involved in any litigation, which would render the performance of any obligation impossible in case the contract is awarded to them. This is attacked as arbitrary since a dealer purchasing a new tank truck even at the time of tender notification, may not be able to produce copies of the registration certificate, calibration certificate, etc. Hence, it is submitted that the above two clauses are unworkable, as they will only benefit transport contractors. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. The contingencies pointed out are that when a new vehicle is purchased, they will only be able to provide the engine number, chasis number, etc. It is submitted that acceptance of new vehicle as one of the tender conditions, may deprive the persons like the petitioners from submitting the tender. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that the tenders submitted by the petitioners 2 to 4 and other members of the first petitioner association shall be provisionally received subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. 4. In the light of the said interim order, 17 persons have submitted tenders wherein brand new vehicles have been shown. It is submitted that they have now procured all the certificates and they will be able to produce wpc36500 /2009 3 them before the respondents within a week. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer of the petitioners. It is submitted that the conditions in Ext.P4 cannot be said to be arbitrary and the said conditions have been provided for a smooth tendering process. It is obvious that the respondent is entitled to provide appropriate conditions to be complied with by the tenderers. Normally, this Court will not be justified in interfering in such matters unless they are shown as arbitrary and illegal. The question whether these conditions are arbitrary or illegal need be gone into only if the petitioners are really prevented from submitting tenders. No violation of any statute or constitutional mandate have been alleged. I am not satisfied that the same is so arbitrary or discriminatory, that the rights of the petitioners or other persons like them are affected or they are excluded from participating in the tender. There is no partial or total exclusion of any of the intending tenderers also. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P4 fails. 6. But in the light of the interim orders, the tenders were directed to be accepted provisionally. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the tenders have not been processed so far. In that view of the matter, if the petitioners produce all the documents within one wpc36500 /2009 4 week, the respondents will be free to consider the tenders of the petitioners if they are otherwise in order and all the tenders will be finalized in accordance with law. This direction is issued in the light of the interim order passed herein and it is made clear that the same will not be treated as a precedent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/