THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19997 of 2009 ORDER: M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the second respondent herein, issued a notification inviting tenders for award of contracts to lift the scrap material on its Tadepalli Yard. The material was divided into various lots. The petitioner emerged as successful bidder for Lot Nos.1, 2 and 8, in all for Rs.13,72,202/-. It is stated that lots 1 and 2 comprised of damaged and old petroleum outlets, viz., 334 pumps, whereas lot No.8 is of MS pipes, angles, channels etc. The petitioner did not face any difficulty in lifting the scrap in lots 1 and 2. It is stated that as against 334 damaged pumps, the petitioner has lifted 279 pumps and the respondents did not raise objection for lifting of balance 55 pumps. When the petitioner attempted to lift the scrap at lot No.8, the respondents are alleged to have stated that the petitioner is entitled to lift the material only to an extent of 20 metric tons, and not beyond that. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondents. It is urged that lot No.8 was sold on “as is where is basis” and the quantity thereof cannot be stipulated disabling the petitioner to lift a part of it. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it is stated that the approximate quantity of lot No.8 was indicated and the petitioner is not entitled to lift more than 20 metric tons. Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, Sri K. Sai Ram Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. In the tender document as well as in the other related documents, the description of lot No.8 is as under – Lot No.8 Lot MS Angles/Pipes/ Name: Channels etc., Scrap materials such as MS angles, Pipes, Channels, sheets of different thickness etc (approx. Qty – 20 Mt) 1 lot As Applicable / As Applicable HPCL VJRO BLDG The relevant documents indicate that the material has to be lifted on “as is where is” basis. Therefore, it emerges that the quantity mentioned in relation to lot No.8 was only approximate, and the petitioner will be entitled to lift it irrespective of the actual weight or measurements. Once the material is put at a lot, the respondents cannot restrict its quantity with reference to weight. The very concept of sale on “as is where is” basis discloses that the purchaser has to take it whether it is less or more than the approximate, mentioned in the documents. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent cannot be countenanced. The writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to lift lot No.8 without any reference to the actual quantity. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 12th November, 2009 Js.