CW 11896/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.11896/2008 Rajasthan Petroleum Dealers Assocn Versus Union of India & Ors. Date of Order ::: 25/03/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. JK Yadav, for petitioner Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, for respondents-HPCL Matter has come up on application U/Art. 226(3) of Constitution of India, seeking vacation of interim stay order dt.24/10/08. At request, matter has been finally heard and is being disposed of at admission stage. Instant petition has been filed by Registered Petroleum Dealers Association (“petitioner-Association”) for setting aside proceedings initiated by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (“HCPL”) vide advertisement cum notice (Ann.2) inviting sealed tenders under Two Bid system for Transportation of Bulk POL products by Road and seeking direction to respondent-HPCL to call members of Association (petitioner) to negotiate on viable rates for transportation through tank Trucks owned by deaelrs. As alleged in the petition, respondent HPCL published Notice inviting tenders (Ann.2) under Two Bid system for Transportation of Bulk CW 11896/08 //2// POL products by Road for a period of two years commencing from 01/10/2008 with an option for extension of one year, and last date to submit tenders was 16/06/08. Under terms & conditions of Tender document, as per its Cl.9, upon which petitioner-Association has stressed, preference would be given to award transport contract to their dealers for transporting their own load requirements subject to their acceptance of rates offered by the Company (HPCL), in reference to NIT (Ann.2), transporters & dealers submitted their bids and as many as 177 tenderers participated in subject tender by offering 499 numbers of Tank Trucks and upon scrutiny of qualified tenders (technical & price bid), successive qualified tenderers were called for negotiation for transportation rates on 15/16-10- 2008 at Depot Saradhana (Ajmer) and after conducting negotiations starting with L-1 to L-5 rates, 73 tenderers (51 transporters & 22 dealers) gave their consent letters accepting negotiated L-1 rates by offering 272 Tank Trucks as is evident from Schedule R/A filed by respondents. Basic grievance of petitioner Association is that their members who are dealers be given preference and respondent-HPCL should negotiate CW 11896/08 //3// with members of the Association for viable rates for transportation of tank Trucks owned by dealer. However, it has not been disclosed in instant petition as to who are such dealers being members of Association nor list of Association's members has been disclosed as to whether member- dealers have submitted their tenders and participated in terms of NIT (Ann.2) – in absence whereof, very premise on which petition has been filed, in the opinion of this Court, is ill- founded. As per General terms & conditions viz. Cl.9 whereof, finally HPCL reserved its right to give preference to award transport contract to their dealers for transporting their own load requirements subject to their acceptance of rates offered by the Company (HPCL); and contrarily, it would be for its such dealers who are tenderers in reference to NIT (Ann.2). Such dealers whose names have not been disclosed to this Court and if they are not tenderers or bidders in reference to NIT (Ann.2), question of giving any preference to their member-dealers for negotiation of rates offered by the HPCL does not arise at all. From the reply of respondent-HPCL, it has been averred in para 6, that as many as 177 tenderers participated in subject tender by CW 11896/08 //4// offering 499 Tank trucks (TTs) and after scrutiny of qualified tenders (Technical & price bid), such qualified tenderers were called upon for negotiations for transportation rates on 15/16th October, 2008 and after conducting negotiations with qualified tenders starting from L1 to L-5 rate, 73 tenderers have given their acceptance to negotiate L-1 rates while offering 272 tank trucks, as is evident from Schedule R/A. While Dealers-Association (petitioner) is not tenderer in pursuance of NIT (Ann.2), Association is neither competent nor having locus to question terms & conditions of the NIT (Ann.2), and in the opinion of this Court, instant petition being totally vexatious & bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed. This Court does not find justification to interfere. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed; and accordingly, application U/Art.226(3) of the Constitution seeking vacation of interim stay order stands disposed of, and interim stay order dt.24/10/2008 whereby this Court directed respondents not to finalise road transport contract of bulk petroleum product is vacated. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/11896CW08Mar25HPCL.doc