Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1188 (KER)

A. M. David v. Union Of India

2017-08-25

ANU SIVARAMAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Anu Sivaraman, J. The challenge raised in these writ petitions is with regard to the award of work in respect of a tender invited for road transportation of bulk petroleum products from the BPCL Kochi Refinery for a period of five years. The petitioners are persons who had participated in the tender process. Their contention is that they had quoted for the work offering more than the minimum required five tank lorries. It is contended that going by the tender conditions, the minimum required number of lorries was five. The estimated requirement of tank lorries was given as 65 lorries having the capacity of 18 kl and above. The petitioner in W.P(C).No. 558 of 2017 had offered three owned lorries and three attached lorries. The petitioners in W.P(C).No. 512 of 2017, who claim to be Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSE) in terms of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act, 2006) claim that they have all submitted tenders with five or more vehicles. Their contention is that only those bidders, who had offered seven or more vehicles, had been considered for the award of work both in the general quota as well as in the 20% quota set apart for MSE. They therefore seek directions to the respondents to consider the tender bids submitted by them also, since they have quoted with more than the minimum required number of vehicles. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in both the cases. It is contended that the estimated requirements in terms of the tender notification was for 65 tank lorries. It is stated that the petitioner in W.P(C).No. 558 of 2017 had applied under the general quota with three owned and three attached tank lorries. The tender conditions specifically provided that within each category (MSE general category, SC category, ST category etc.) the tank lorries offered are more than the required, then the eligible bidders are liable to be ranked in the order of priority as provided in sub-clause 10 of clause-C of the tender terms and conditions, which reads as under: "10. The tender conditions specifically provided that within each category (MSE general category, SC category, ST category etc.) the tank lorries offered are more than the required, then the eligible bidders are liable to be ranked in the order of priority as provided in sub-clause 10 of clause-C of the tender terms and conditions, which reads as under: "10. In case, for a particular ranking in respective TL capacity above, if the tank-lorries offered are more than the requirement then the tank-lorries will be taken based on the following order of priority; (a) Maximum Number of OWN TLs offered in different capacity of TLs (i.e. 12 KL, 18 KL & above). (b) The maximum number of TLs shall be 10% of total requirement of TLs in this tender or 5 whichever is more would be considered at par for evaluation of this criteria. (c) Number of Tank Lorry offered with lower age. (d) Number of total Tank Lorries offered. Transporters in a particular ranking will be further ranked based on the above order of priority and allocations will be made only till such time that the full requirement of tank lorry is met. Consequently, transporters who rank lower may not get the allocation." It is therefore contended that the tender conditions having specifically provided for the method for allotment for work on the basis of the number of owned lorries, the petitioners, who had offered only six tank lorries, were not eligible for the award of work. It is further stated that only those tenderers, who had quoted at L1 rates and had offered seven owned tank lorries, had been considered for the award of work. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent BPCL. 4. After having considered the contentions advanced with specific reference to the tender conditions as contained in the WP(C).512 & 558/17 4 tender document, I find that minimum number of five tank lorries was provided in the tender conditions as eligibility for a tenderer to participate in the tender process. In case the eligible tenders are more than the number of vehicles required in each category, the modality of allocation is as prescribed in sub-clause 10 of Clause-C of the tender conditions. In case the eligible tenders are more than the number of vehicles required in each category, the modality of allocation is as prescribed in sub-clause 10 of Clause-C of the tender conditions. It is specifically stated therein that the allotment will be on the basis of the maximum number of owned lorries and the models of the vehicles offered. 5. In these writ petitions the petitioners have not raised any challenge to the tender conditions. Their case is that they are entitled to allotment, since they have offered more than the minimum number of tank lorries. It is not disputed before me that only those tenderers who had offered seven owned lorries of latest models have been awarded the work both in the general quota as well as in the reserved quota. In the absence of any challenge to the tender conditions, sub-clause 10 of Clause-C, which specifically provides for the method of award of work when there are more than the required vehicles available in each category would clearly govern the allocation of vehicles. I find that the prayer raised in these writ petitions WP(C).512 & 558/175 for consideration of the tenders submitted by the petitioners cannot be granted. 6. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.