IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3358 of 2018
M/s Tanuja Parwati Transport & Forwarding Agency……….Petitioner
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another …Respondents
Present:- Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K.R. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is a transporter. He participated in E-tender process which was invited by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for supply of 100 trucks for transporting gas cylinders. The petitioner being the transporter was one of the participants in the said process.
2. According to the respondents, the petitioner made a bid for 13 trucks, out of which, only two trucks have been selected.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that though the Indian Oil Corporation Limited requisitioned 100 trucks but they could not get 100 trucks and since the essential commodity had to be supplied, they called the existing transporters (which included the present petitioner), for supply of additional trucks vide order dated 18.10.2018. This order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court on the ground that there is no transparency in the matter as the respondents ought to have made a requisition through E- tender and it should have been made open to all and it shall not be restricted to the existing transporters.
4. An objection has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has no reason to challenge the tender process, nor is he an aggrieved party, for the simple reason that he is one of the existing transporters, and vide impugned order he too has been requested to supply additional trucks. This is being done, considering the constrain of time, as E-tendering is a time consuming process. The need for additional trucks has come up for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited as what are to be supplied are gas cylinders which come under the category of essential commodity.
5. There seems to be no anomaly in the matter, which may call for any interference. Nor is the petitioner is an aggrieved party. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed in limine.
6. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 02.11.2018