IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 8042 of 2009 Date of decision:8.7.2009 Jai Mata Oil Carrier and others ......Petitioners. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.T.P.S.Tung, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, , Advocate, for the respondents No.1,2 & 3. Mr.D.K.Singal, Advocate for respondents No. 4, 7 and 87. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Grievance of the petitioners is that their tenders were accepted after negotiation but thereafter respondent No.1 has accepted 52 additional tank trucks for the same work, which has rendered trucks of the petitioners idle contrary to the terms of the contract. 2. Even though reply has been filed stating that in terms of tender conditions, respondent No.1 was at liberty to engage additional contractors/tank trucks and the number of tank trucks shown in tender notice was tentative which was subject to change, we are of the view that respondent No.3, before whom the petitioners have made representation (Annexure P-4), may be asked to examine the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. 3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to C.W.P.No. 8042 of 2009 [2] respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a speaking order. It is made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3, they will be at liberty to take their remedy in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 08, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No C.W.P.No. 8042 of 2009 [3]