IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1442 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2009 M/s Baleem Filling Station through its Prop. Surinder Singh . ......Petitioner. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Amar Vivek Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of rejection of petitioner's tender on the ground that in the price bid the rate quoted was mentioned only in figures and not in words and also allotment of work to respondents No. 3 to 5 on higher rate. 2. Case of petitioner is that it is running a retail outlet-cum-filling station. It had its own tank trucks for supply of petroleum products from respondents' terminal to its own filling station. It has been transporting fuel by its own tank trucks for the last three years. The tender notice dated 25.7.2008 was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to allot the work of transportation. The petitioner gave a bid which was lowest. It was asked to rectify in the bid, but the work was not allotted. Later it was learnt that the bid had been turned down. 3. Writ petition was earlier filed which was taken up on 27.11.2008 and was dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to any other remedy. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the General Civil Writ Petition No.1442 of 2009 [2] Manager, on which personal hearing was given but no decision was taken. 4. Stand of the respondent is that as per tender conditions, the rates quoted were to be mentioned in both words and figures and in case of any difference, the rates quoted in words were to be considered as final. It was mentioned in the tender conditions that if any of the conditions was not met, the same shall be rejected. Letter dated 1/11/2008 was never given to the petitioner. Objection has also been taken that the writ petition having been dismissed as withdrawn earlier, another writ petition could not be filed in absence of permission having been granted to do so. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Even though we are in agreement with the submission that tender conditions have to be strictly followed and there is nothing wrong in the condition requiring offer to be mentioned in figures and words, where quotation is clear and unambiguous, there is no bar in such an offer being considered. 7. Having regard to the fact that tenders have already been allotted to respondents No.3 to 5, or other persons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said allotment. Even learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for that relief. 8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to condition No.10 of the tender terms and conditions to the following effect: “10 (a) IOC existing RO Dealers/Consumers can participate in this tender for award of transport contract. IOC reserves the right to give preference to award transport contract to their dealers/ consumers for transporting their own load requirements subject to their acceptance of L-1 rates offered by the Company at first instance. RO Dealers/Consumers not Civil Writ Petition No.1442 of 2009 [3] accepting L-1 rate offered by the Company at first instance shall be treated at par with other tenderers and shall be evaluated based on their original rankings.” 9. He submits that the petitioner has accepted L-1 rates and, thus, could be allowed to transport his own load requirements. 10. We are of the view that even though rate has not been mentioned in words, the fact remains that the rate quoted by the petitioner was clearly spelt out in figures and was lowest. Without disturbing the contract already awarded, the petitioner could be considered for the award of transport contract for transporting its own load requirement on L-1 rates. 11. Let this aspect be considered by the General Manager of respondent No.1- Indian Oil Corporation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner may appear in the office of General, Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, on 16.7.2009 and the General Manager may give a date of his convenience and pass an order by giving him personal hearing. 12. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 09, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No