IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11619 of 2009 Between: Gutta Pitchaiah, S/o. Nagabhushanam M/s. New Car Travels, R/o. D.No.27-23-247, Gopal Reddy Road, Governerpet, Vijayawada-520 002, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, LPG Bottling Plant, rep. by its Plant Manager, I.D.A. Botling Platn, I.D.A. Kondapalli-521 228, Krishna District. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Naspur House, D.NO.3-6-436 to 438, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad-500 029 3. V. Ravindra Proprietor : M/s. Ravindra Tours & Travels, D.No.40-1-57, Swarajyalakshmi Estate, Benz Circle, Vijayawada-10. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's Tender dated 05.06.2009 for supply Transport service to the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and issue consequential direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's Tender dated 05.06.2009 also along with others and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN The Court made the following: HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI W.P.NO.11619 OF 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent – Indian Oil Corporation Limited – issued tender notice dated 20.05.2009 inviting tenders in sealed covers from the eligible persons for supply of transport service in providing a Mini Bus 16+1 seater capacity for employees at Kondapally Bottling Plant. The last date for receipt of tenders was 5.6.2009 at 3.00 pm and at 3.30 pm on the same day tenders were scheduled to be opened. The writ petitioner who claims to be an existing transport contractor with the Indian Oil Corporation transporting the employees of the Corporation at Kondapally Bottling Plant, submitted his tender offering a Mini Bus (AP 16 TV 6336) registered on 2.1.2006. He also offered another vehicle (AP 16 TX 7756) which is manufactured in the year 2008. However, the 1st respondent Corporation rejected the petitioner’s tender on the ground that the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TV 6336 was not of 2006 model and the other vehicle was of only 16 seater capacity. The said action of the Corporation in rejecting the petitioner’s tender is assailed in this writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the vehicles offered by the petitioner were new vehicles and they are in good condition, the action of the Corporation in rejecting the petitioner’s tender in spite of the fact that it is the lowest is arbitrary and illegal. It is to be noted that in the tender notice it was made clear that the vehicle required is a Mini Bus with 16+1 seater capacity. Admittedly the vehicle (AP 16 TX 7756) offered by the petitioner is of 16 seater capacity, but the petitioner contends that he can make 17 seater by obtaining permission from the Regional Transport Authority in one day if the work is given to him. Such a contention cannot be accepted and since admittedly the vehicle offered was not in conformity with the prescribed requirements, the Corporation cannot be found fault with in not accepting the said offer. So far as the other vehicle (AP 16 TV 6336) offered by the petitioner is concerned, though it is claimed by the petitioner that the said vehicle is 2006 model the same was found to be false by the Corporation. Condition No.10 of the General terms and conditions of the tender notice provided that the vehicle offered for the said work should be in good condition and model of the vehicle should be 2006 or higher. May be that the petitioner’s vehicle was registered on 2.1.2006, but it was found by the Corporation that it was not 2006 model. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioner to show that the conclusion of the Corporation was wrong. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that since the vehicle offered by him is in a good condition, the Corporation ought not to have rejected his tender. The said contention cannot be accepted since the petitioner failed to satisfy the further condition that the model of the vehicle should be 2006 or higher. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs. ____________ 16-06-2009 kvrm HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI W.P.NO.11619 OF 2009 DATED 16.06.2009