THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.326 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are owners of tank trucks that are used for transporting the petroleum products. All of them are members of Visakhapatnam Oil Tank Truck Owners Association, Visakhapatnam, and the 4th respondent is the Secretary of the Association. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent, issued a tender notice, in October, 2009, for the purpose of selection of the truck owners, for transporting the petroleum products. The process comprised of technical bid and price bid. The petitioners state that all of them have obtained the tender schedules, but, as per the understanding of the members of the Association, they handed over the filled up tenders, to the 4th respondent, by keeping the price part of it, blank. It is alleged that the 4th respondent filled the same rate in all the tender forms, and as a result of applying the other criteria, such as, the size of the fleet, owned by the tenderer, and as a result, he came to be selected. The petitioners challenge the action of the respondents herein. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and the 4th respondent separate counter-affidavits are filed. The allegations made by the petitioners, as to the illegality in the selection of the 4th respondent, are denied. Heard Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R.Raghunandan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the entire process is vitiated, on account of formation of cartel. The attention of this Court is drawn to certain clauses that have a bearing on the matter. This Court would have appreciated the contention of the petitioners, if the 4th respondent independently has brought into existence, any cartel and the petitioners became victims of that. In this case, the alleged cartel comprises of the petitioners themselves. Being parties to the said illegality, the petitioners cannot complain about the consequences thereof. Further, the petitioners are very much aware that in the event of the price quoted by different tenderers being the same, other criteria, such as, the size of the fleet of vehicles would be taken into account. If the petitioners did not choose to fill the rates in the tenders and have handed over them to the 4th respondent, they have to squarely blame themselves for the situation, leading to the selection of the 4th respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17.02.2010. GJ