THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8532 OF 2010 Dated 16th April, 2010 Between: Soma Suresh …Petitioner And Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Hari Haran Counsel for the respondents: Sri R.Raghunandan for Sri Thoom Srinivas The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 01.04.2010 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. In pursuance of the tender notification issued by the respondents, the petitioner offered to transport the products of the respondents through five Tank Trucks (TTs). The petitioner’s offer was accepted and while accepting the said offer, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 24.02.2010/08.03.2010 informed the petitioner that the work order will be issued after meeting all the tender conditions stipulated in the subject public tender such as availability of Tank Trucks with all safety fittings, original documents verification etc. In response to the said proceeding, the petitioner addressed letter dated 15.03.2010 wherein it is, inter alia, stated that in view of certain small defects in the TTs requiring modifications, the TTs are not being produced and the petitioner promised and assured the respondents that he will produce the TTs for inspection before the end of March (31.03.2010) without fail. Respondent No.2, evidently, waited till expiry of the time requested for by the petitioner and issued the impugned proceedings, wherein it is stated that as the petitioner failed to submit original documents with TTs, they are unable to consider the petitioner’s tender and that no further extension can be given. Feeling aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that in pursuance of the impugned letter, the respondents have entrusted the contract to three other persons on 05.04.2010 and 08.04.2010. As I do not find any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned letter, no interference is called for in this writ petition, more so in the light of the fact that the respondents have entrusted the contract to a set of three contractors. It is, however, stated in the communication sent to the learned Standing Counsel by the respondents that they will be able to issue next Letter of Indents (LOIs) for waiting qualified tenderers for induction of TTs after getting approval for additional TTs. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to make a detailed representation to the respondents for issue of LOI in the additional quota. The respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with their policy. This direction, however, shall not be construed as a mandate to the respondents to issue LOI to the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10982 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th April, 2010 vrn