ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed the award of work (transportation of bulk white petroleum products), by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘HPCL’) in favour of respondent No. 4, M/s. Sai Roadways (for short ‘Sai Roadways’) in pursuance to tender notice dated 23.07.2018. 2. On 23.07.2018, HPCL invited offers, under the two-bid system, for road transportation of bulk white petroleum products ex-Nalagarh for the period 1.10.2018 to 30.09.2023. Estimated tank trucks requirement was as under: S. No. Description White oils 1st to 3rd year 4th to 5th year 1. Tank trucks with capacity of 12 KL and above and less than 18 KL 48 31 2. Tank trucks with capacity of 18 KL and above 135 40 3. Due date for submission of bids was 18.08.2018. Technical and financial bids were to be evaluated on 22.09.2018 and 15.10.2018 respectively. 4. As per tender document, the transporters could apply under three categories. First, those who had tank trucks in their physical possession. Second, those who were ready to offer tank trucks with temporary registration and third, those who belonged to SC/ST categories could make offers with booking slips only. The second category of transporters, as noticed above, could offer tank trucks with 18 KL and above capacity only. 5. On 09.08.2018, Sai Roadways submitted its bid and offered total 36 numbers of tank trucks, out of which, three chassis were claimed to be with it with temporary registrations. HPCL accepted the bid of Sai Roadways for 36 numbers offered tank trucks and letter of acceptance (LOA) was issued on 17.12.2018. A formal agreement was signed between HPCL and Sai Roadways on 01.01.2019. 6. As per allegations of petitioner, Sai Roadways violated tender conditions by submitting false information and thereby misrepresented to the HPCL its capacity for the purposes of evaluation. Two out of three tank trucks of more than 18 KL capacity bearing chassis numbers Bj2586 and Bj2579, offered by the Sai Roadways, with temporary registration numbers, were falsely represented to have been purchased from M/s. Yashoda Motors, Patiala (Punjab) vide tax invoices dated 09.08.2018, whereas, these two chassis with No. BJ-2586 and BJ-2579 were sold by M/s. Yashoda Motors to Shri Rajendra Singh resident of Jamnagar, Gujarat and Shri Jagir Singh of Punjab in the first instance. The chassis purchased by Shri Rajinder Singh was temporarily registered with Registering and Licensing Authority, Jamnagar, Gujarat on 02.11.2018 Vide No. GJ-10(T)X-8413 and was further sold on 08.02.2019, by said Shri Rajinder Singh to Sh. Shekhar Chander one of the partners of Sai Roadways. Similarly, Chassis No. BJ-2586 was got registered by Shri Jagir Singh with Registering and Licensing Authority, Patiala (Punjab) under Registration No. PB-11CQ-0415. It was on 29.01.2019 that this chassis was further sold by Shri Jagir Singh in favour of above mentioned, Shekhar Chander. 7. On the above allegations, petitioner maintains that on 09.08.2018, when Sai Roadways uploaded its bid, it was not the owner of, above noticed, two chassis of tank trucks above 18 KL capacity. Even on the date of issuance of LOA i.e. 17.12.2018 and also on the date of signing of agreement dated 01.01.2019, Sai Roadways was neither having ownership of chassis bearing No. BJ-2579 and BJ-2586 nor their temporary registrations. The specific allegation of petitioner is that Sai Roadways submitted false and forged documents in respect of these two chassis for tank trucks above 18KL capacity with HPCL and by fraudulent means succeeded in securing the contract for 36 tank trucks. According to petitioner, Sai Roadways by unfair means has been able to influence the evaluation process in its favour, in which officers of HPCL, especially respondent No. 3 was privy. 8. Basing its claim on the above noted allegations, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “A writ of certiorari to quash the award of tender/grant of letter of acceptance in favour of the private respondent-M/s. Sai Roadways, because firstly, it has secured the tender through a well-planned, conscious and intentional fraudulent representations i.e. I furnished forged/false/fabricated/procured tax invoices dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure P-4 Colly.) and temporary certificate of registration dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure P-5 Colly.), secondly filed a false affidavit dated nil (Annexure P-3), as part of the technical bid which is clear from the registration certificate and form no. 29 (Annexure P-11 Colly and P-12 Colly) secured by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act; thirdly, the said private respondent has colluded with the official respondents, who purposely did not take any action against the said transporter and who are habitual with having underhand dealings with selected transporters; fourthly, the official respondents neither held any investigation/inquiry nor carried suspended the tank trucks of the said private respondent, in order to enrich the latter, purely at the cost of public interest; fifthly the official respondents have acted purely for private gain and completely forgotten about their duties, while dealing with State largesse. And/or With the further prayer, that consequential disciplinary action be also taken against the private respondent, as per the Discipline Guidelines, because the tender was secured by the said respondent based on forged documents/false information in accordance with Condition No. 5.3, 8.2.1.m and 8.2.2.13 of the DNIT/Discipline Guidelines (Annexure P-1) And/or With the further prayer that order of priority and allocation be reassessed/re-done, in terms of the DNIT, as per the relevant condition is at Page No. 52, Condition No. 9 of the DNIT (Annexure P-1) and the work order/letter be re-issued to the deserving candidates, including the petitioner. And/or During the pendency of the present writ petition, that no further work be granted to the private respondent M/s. Sai Roadways in view of the apparent fraudulent representations made by the said transporter, to secure the tender. And/or Direct that Central Bureau of Investigation may kindly register a criminal case with regard to the selection and allocation of work, in relation to detailed notice inviting tender dated 28.07.2018 (Annexure P-1), especially in light of the fact that this is the third case [after Vikrant Oil Carrier vs. Union of India C.W.P. No. 628 of 2019 and Parvesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. C.W.P. No. 2441 of 2021], wherein forged documents have been used by a private transporter in active collusion and purely for quid pro quo with the official respondents for awarding work related to transportation of fuels.” 9. Respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. HPCL and its impleaded officers have submitted their joint defence. It has been stated on their behalf that they had awarded the work vide agreement dated 01.01.2019 in favour of Sai Roadways after due verification of the documents. Respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. HPCL and its impleaded officers have submitted their joint defence. It has been stated on their behalf that they had awarded the work vide agreement dated 01.01.2019 in favour of Sai Roadways after due verification of the documents. The specific stand of respondent No. 1 to 3 is that Sai Roadways had provided same details of offered tank trucks in its bid and also at the time of verification after issuance of LOA in its favour. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have acknowledged having received a complaint from the petitioner on 16.03.2021 and also proclaimed of having taken action thereon by seeking clarification from M/s. Yashoda Motors, Patiala vide letter dated 20.03.2021. It is the case of respondents No. 1 to 3 that Yashoda Motors vide its response dated 02.04.2021 confirmed that Chassis Nos. BJ-2579 and BJ-2586 were sold by it to Sai Roadways vide tax invoice dated 09.08.2018. 10. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also taken exception to the filing of petition by the petitioner being barred on account of delay and laches as also the alleged inequitable conduct of the petitioner. In support of such objections, it has been contended that the agreement was executed between HPCL and Sai Roadways on 01.01.2019 and the petitioner waited for petition to be filed in June, 2021. In addition, the petitioner himself was one of the bidders and was also awarded some amount of tendered work. The petitioner since failed to fulfill its contractual obligations with HPCL, the contract of the petitioner was rescinded and therefore petition was result of sheer act of vengeance on the part of the petitioner. 11. Sai Roadways has also contested the allegations of the petitioner by filing a separate reply. The petitioner is accused of having approached this Court with unclean hands. Delay and laches have also been raised as one of the defences, besides the exceptions taken on the ground of maintainability etc. 11. Sai Roadways has also contested the allegations of the petitioner by filing a separate reply. The petitioner is accused of having approached this Court with unclean hands. Delay and laches have also been raised as one of the defences, besides the exceptions taken on the ground of maintainability etc. On merits, Sai Roadways has denied the allegations of petitioner in general, however, it is pertinent to notice the contents of reply of said respondent in Para (h) thereof, an extract of which reads as under: “.....It is pertinent to mention here that the replying respondent had already purchased the registration numbers, chassis, and engine numbers from M/s. Yashoda Motors and since the understanding between the replying respondent and the bank authorities was to the effect that if the tender is allotted in favour of the replying respondent by the Corporation immediately thereafter the bank authorities from where the replying respondent has to raise loan shall release the funds for purchase of these three trucks/tanker but in the meantime when the negotiation process was active between the finance company as well as the replying respondent M/s. Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd. from where the respondent had purchased the engine number, chassis number and registration number of three vehicles, one of the vehicle/truck was sold by Yashoda Motor Pvt. Ltd. Unauthorizedly and without any intimation to the replying respondent, on inquiry, it transpired that the second vehicle has been sold by Yashoda Motors to one Sh. Rajender Singh resident of Jamnagar illegally, hence, immediately the replying respondent took up the matter with Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd. and purchased back the aforesaid Tank Truck from Sh. Rajendra Singh much before 60 days when the truck/tanker had to be physically placed for physical verification as per clause 5(f) of the tender document, hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner are absolutely frivolous and deserves to be rejected out rightly. Further, one of the vehicles was also purchased back from one Sh. Rajendra Singh much before 60 days when the truck/tanker had to be physically placed for physical verification as per clause 5(f) of the tender document, hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner are absolutely frivolous and deserves to be rejected out rightly. Further, one of the vehicles was also purchased back from one Sh. Jagir Singh which was also unauthorizedly sold by M/s. Yashoda Motors, but the fact of the matter remains that at the time of execution of the tender document and the information supplied by the replying respondent regarding these three tanks/trucks was absolutely true and not forged on any level, the replying respondent cannot be penalized for the wrong and illegal act of M/s. Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd. It is also pertinent to mention here that no clause/condition of the tender document has been violated and the present petition filed by the petitioner is just an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court which deserves to be dismissed, the replying respondent had already purchased the engine number, chassis number of the aforesaid vehicles and in lieu of that temporary numbers were also issued in favour of the replying respondent which is evident from the invoices an the Letter of Registration issued by M/s. Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd. issued in favour of the replying respondent as Annexure R-4/1. There was no violation, irregularities or illegalities in submitting the documents as wrongly projected by the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had filed a complaint with the Corporation which is Annexure P-8 annexed by him, regarding the dispute, the contents of the complaint absolutely if perused will clearly demonstrate that the same is false as the replying respondent never released the bill and temporary RC of vehicle No. HP12L9815 the fact of the matter is that such vehicle as mentioned by the petitioner vehicle does not even exist and the same is a sheer imagination of the petitioner and he may be put to strict proof of the allegations regarding this particular vehicle number. The fact of the matter is that the vehicle which was purchased back from Mr. Rajendra Singh, resident of Jamnagar was not registered as HP12L 9715, but was numbered as HP-12L-8815, hence, the entire complaint and allegations made by the petitioner are absolutely frivolous and misleading and secondly, one Vehicle No. HP-12L-9715 was also purchased back from one Sh. The fact of the matter is that the vehicle which was purchased back from Mr. Rajendra Singh, resident of Jamnagar was not registered as HP12L 9715, but was numbered as HP-12L-8815, hence, the entire complaint and allegations made by the petitioner are absolutely frivolous and misleading and secondly, one Vehicle No. HP-12L-9715 was also purchased back from one Sh. Jagir Singh which were wrongly and without information to the replying respondent were sold by M/s. Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd.; the fact of the matter is that these three vehicles were already purchased by the replying respondent from M/s. Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd. alongwith its Engine Number, Chasis No. and Temporary Number as is evident from the tax invoices attached with the replying as Annexure R-4/1. Rest of the contents of this para where the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court are a matter of record, but the judgments so relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable in the present case.” 12. Petitioner by way of rejoinder filed to the replies of the respondents has denied the averments made therein and has also reiterated its stand taken in the petition. It has been submitted that principle of delay and laches cannot bar the remedy of the petitioner as the allegations of fraud are involved against the respondents. It has further been mentioned that termination of contract of petitioner is subject matter of CWP No. 1080 of 2020, pending in this Court, by way of which, petitioner has assailed the termination. It has also been stated that petitioner had filed another CWP No. 628 of 2019, challenging the illegal acts of HPCL in awarding a contract under the same notice inviting tenders, which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court and upheld by a Division Bench in LPA No. 4/2021. As per petitioner, HPCL had cancelled its contract as an Act of vengeance. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 14. Before delving into the rival contentions of parties, we deem it appropriate to notice certain relevant terms of the tender document as under: Condition number 1 of Special Terms and Conditions: “All Tank Trucks offered against invoice (temporary registration) have to be owned by the tenderers only. 14. Before delving into the rival contentions of parties, we deem it appropriate to notice certain relevant terms of the tender document as under: Condition number 1 of Special Terms and Conditions: “All Tank Trucks offered against invoice (temporary registration) have to be owned by the tenderers only. Tank Truck on Temporary registration means new chassis, with chassis number, engine number, fitted with ABS and with the provision for installing tank of capacity of 18 KL and above at a later date, no open body Truck will be accepted.” Mode of online payment of earnest money deposit (EMD): Description HPCL For Transporters Rs. 5,000/- per Tank Truck in physical possession. For all Transporters offering Tank Truck with temporary registration and affidavit (For 18 KL and above only) Rs. 1,00,000/- per Tank Truck. For SC/ST Transporters offering Tank truck with booking slip. Rs. 5000/- per Tank Truck. Clause No. 5 (f) of instructions to tenderers prescribing rejection criteria: “5. Rejection Criteria: Tenders/Tank Trucks will be rejected in the event of the bidders not complying with any of the following tender conditions. HPCL may ask the bidder to submit/resubmit/upload any documents required to be submitted as a part of the Tender document or as a part of technical evaluation within the stipulated time. In case the required document is not submitted/uploaded within stipulated time, HPCL reserves the right to take decision as deemed fit basis the available documents submitted by the bidder. ...................... ...................... (f) Tenders without the required valid documents for the Tank Truck as given below: Description Documents required* Tank Trucks RC Book, PESO License and Calibration certificate. Tank Trucks with Temporary Registration Temporary Chassis Registration Certificate and affidavit in the prescribed format. TT offered under Booking slip (For SC/ST tenderers) Chassis Booking Slip & affidavit in the prescribed format. Clause 3 of special terms and conditions: “3. No. of Tank Trucks to be offered by Transporters: The transporters have to offer a Minimum of 5 (FIVE) tank trucks, of which at least 2 (two) should be owned tank trucks. In the name of the Firm or any of the Partners or the Proprietor. In case offered tank trucks are more than 5 (five), at least 40% of the offered tank trucks should be owned. Special Clause for SC/ST transporters: SC/ST Bidders may offer a minimum of 2 (Two) Tank Trucks, out of which at least 1 nos. In the name of the Firm or any of the Partners or the Proprietor. In case offered tank trucks are more than 5 (five), at least 40% of the offered tank trucks should be owned. Special Clause for SC/ST transporters: SC/ST Bidders may offer a minimum of 2 (Two) Tank Trucks, out of which at least 1 nos. should be owned. Above Two Tank Trucks, minimum 40% of the Total Trucks should be owned. A bidder quoting for a particular capacity (12kl but less than 18KL or 18 KL and above) will have to offer at least one owned truck in that capacity. If a bidder offers only attached TT against a particular capacity, those trucks will be rejected in technical evaluation. The bid of the tenderer will be evaluated based on the remaining tank trucks offered.” Clause 8.2.1(m) of the Oil Industries Discipline Guidelines (for short ‘guidelines’) 15. Clause 8.2.1(m) of the Oil Industries Discipline Guidelines (for short ‘guidelines’) defines malpractices/irregularities and clause ‘m’ thereof include entering into contract based on forged documents/false information. The penalty prescribed as per Clause 8.2.2.13 for entering into contract based on forged documents/false information is blacklisting of tank trucks with further provision to the following effect: “However, in case, complicity of the transporter is established even in first instance of malpractice, the entire fleet will be blacklisted, contract terminated and carrier blacklisted along with forfeiture of SD.” 16. The tender documents also contained a standard form bulk petroleum products road transporters agreement which was required to be executed between HPCL and the successful bidder. Clause 17(d) thereof is relevant to be noticed here as under: “This agreement is valid for a period upto xxxxxxx w.e.f. xxxxxxx. However, Company reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by giving two months advance notice without assigning any reasons and contractor is not entitled to claim any compensation from the Corporation. ...................... ...................... (d) If any of the information submitted by the Carrier in the tender is found incorrect at any time.” 17. HPCL and Sai Roadways executed an agreement dated 01.01.2019, in which also, the Condition No. 17(d) as extracted above was incorporated. 18. Another requirement of the tender document was that an undertaking was to be submitted by a tenderer as under: UNDERTAKING (On Non Judicial Stamp Paper-Rs. 100.00) ...................... ...................... 6. HPCL and Sai Roadways executed an agreement dated 01.01.2019, in which also, the Condition No. 17(d) as extracted above was incorporated. 18. Another requirement of the tender document was that an undertaking was to be submitted by a tenderer as under: UNDERTAKING (On Non Judicial Stamp Paper-Rs. 100.00) ...................... ...................... 6. We further confirm that the details as furnished by us have been verified and found correct. We undertake to place the Tank Trucks at the disposal of HPC in case the contract is awarded in our favour. If any information is found to be false and incorrect, the contract if awarded to us shall be liable to be cancelled and we shall be liable to pay to the Oil Company such damages/losses/claims as the Oil Company may put to due to termination of the contract. We also undertake that should there be any action against Oil Company resulting in damages of whatsoever nature to Oil Company on account of award of contract in our favour on the basis of the misrepresentations, we shall keep the Oil Company completely indemnified against all the claims/losses/damages/litigations/court action etc. 19. The above noted provisions of tender document, clearly spelled out that transporters submitting their bids on the basis of tank trucks with temporary registrations were mandatorily required to be owners thereof with chassis number, engine number, fitted with ABS and having temporary registration. Since, this was eligibility criteria the same was required to be adhered strictly. As per prescribed rejection criteria and also the guidelines, want of eligibility requirements would entail rejection of tender in certain given situations. Undertakings were also solicited from tenderers to the effect that in case any information supplied by tenderer was found to be false and incorrect, even the awarded contract would be liable to be cancelled. 20. The examination of material on record divulges that petitioner obtained certain information, under Right to Information Act, from the Registration and Licensing Authority, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. with respect to the vehicles i.e. tank Trucks No. HP-12L-8815 and HP-12L-9715 under which the Chassis No. BJ2579 and Bj2586 were respectively registered with the said authority. The information provided by the PIO of the office of S.D.O. (Civil) Nalagarh revealed that Chassis No. BJ-2579 was registered on 02.11.2018 in the name of one Shri Rajinder Singh son of Sh. The information provided by the PIO of the office of S.D.O. (Civil) Nalagarh revealed that Chassis No. BJ-2579 was registered on 02.11.2018 in the name of one Shri Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Kanubha Vaghela with Registering and Licensing Authority, Jamnagar Gujarat under the Registration No. GJ-10TX-8413 and said Shri Rajinder Singh further sold the said vehicle to Shri Shekhar Chander on 08.02.2019. As regards Chassis No. BJ-2586, it was revealed that the same was sold to one Jagir Singh who got it registered with Registering and Licensing Authority, Patiala under Registration No. PB-11-CQ 0415. This vehicle was further sold by Shri Jagir Singh to Shri Shekhar Chander on 29.01.2019. 21. Respondents No. 1 to 3 along-with their reply have annexed certain documents that include the copies of registration certificates, issued by R&LA, Nalagarh, for vehicle Nos. HP-12L-8815 and HP-12L-9715 with Chassis Nos. BJ-2579 and BJ-2586 respectively. As per these documents the date of registration of Vehicle No. HP-12L-8815 is 2.11.2018 and for Vehicle No. HP-12L-9715 is 27.11.2018. 22. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that entries in these certificates of registration, especially with respect to the date of registration are incorrect and these documents as produced by the petitioner with HPCL were forged and fabricated. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that these registration certificates have QR Codes inscribed thereon and if such Codes are deciphered, the true and correct entries recorded in the records of Registering and Licensing Authority, Nalagarh would be evident. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf has been found to be correct. On application of QR Code Reader, the actual date of registration of Vehicle No. HP-12L-8815 is 13.02.2019 and of Vehicle No. HP-12L-9715 is 07.02.2019. 23. The extract of reply of Sai Roadways, reproduced hereinabove, is also evident of the fact that said respondent in fact had not purchased the above noted chassis from Yashoda Motors and it was by subsequent sales dated 07.02.2019 and 08.02.2019 that first purchasers Shri Rajinder Singh and Jagir Singh sold vehicles to Shri Shekhar Chander. 24. Though this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not decide any dispute as to question of fact, but the factual position as has emerged from the records cannot also be ignored. 24. Though this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not decide any dispute as to question of fact, but the factual position as has emerged from the records cannot also be ignored. There is no dispute between the parties, at least, to the fact that the documents referred to hereinabove were not the same which were supplied by Sai Roadways to HPCL for securing the contract. That being so, the conclusion becomes inevitable that Sai Roadways had not acquired the ownership of two numbers of tank trucks having Chassis Nos. BJ-2579 and BJ-2586. Therefore, there was a clear misrepresentation on its part as to material facts not only at the time of submission of bid but also at the time of entering into agreement with HPCL. The transfer of said vehicles in the name of one of the partners of Sai Roadways was also at much subsequent stage i.e. on 07.02.2019 and 13.02.2019. 25. Thus, the stand maintained by Respondents about due verification of documents submitted by Sai Roadways does not appear to be correct. HPCL was under legal obligation to verify the claim of Sai Roadways at the time of evaluation of its bid. No efforts were made by the HPCL to inquire into the matter, even on complaint dated 16.03.2021 received from the petitioner. The inquiry allegedly conducted by the HPCL from Yashoda Motors appears to be a farce as Yashoda Motors itself was accused of having issued false tax invoice in favour of Sai Roadways. The burden that lied upon HPCL to check the veracity of the allegations made against Sai Roadways cannot be said to have been discharged, merely by seeking some information from Yashoda Motors. The entire details of information was readily available with the Registration and Licensing Authority, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. but no attempt appears to have been made by the HPCL to verify the records from the said office. 26. The HPCL being a public authority and an instrumentality of the State is bound to act in fair and unbiased manner. In Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. NOIDA, (2011) 6 SCC 508 their lordships have held as under: “38. 26. The HPCL being a public authority and an instrumentality of the State is bound to act in fair and unbiased manner. In Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. NOIDA, (2011) 6 SCC 508 their lordships have held as under: “38. The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse etc., acts as a trustee and, therefore, has 2 to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee. 39. State actions required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a “democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination.” The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favoritism and nepotism. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. 40. The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the Constitution. In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society. 41. Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact-situation of a case. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society. 41. Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact-situation of a case. “Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them.” A decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An Authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context “in good faith” means “for legitimate reasons.” It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other. 27. Thus, from the material on record especially from the conduct of HPCL and also the stand taken by the said authority in the present matter, sheer arbitrariness on its part is reflected. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations being of a very serious nature require investigation especially when forged registration certificates of vehicles are alleged to have been used in the deal. 28. Though petitioner has failed to convince and explain the reasons for not filing the petition within reasonable time from the award of work in favour of Sai Roadways, but in the given facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the petition will not be fatal, for the reason that there is sufficient material on record to suggest that on one hand Sai Roadways had not been fair in clinching the contract in question from the HPCL and on the other even the conduct of HPCL is not beyond shadow of doubt. The doctrine of delay and laches is a rule of equity and an equitable doctrine. It is not an absolute rule that delay and laches will always defeat the remedy of a person. It depends upon the facts of each individual case. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353 , wherein it has been ruled that: “12.....Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third-party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.” And again: “14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. [Vide: Durga Prashad vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, (1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769 , Collector (LA) vs. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : AIR 1987 SC 1353 , Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. vs. District Board, Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598 : AIR 1993 SC 802 , Dayal Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1140 and Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. vs. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 : AIR 2011 SC 2161 .]” 29. On the basis of aforesaid exposition of law, we have no hesitation in holding that the rejection of the claim of petitioner in the instant case merely on technical ground of delay and laces will defeat the ends of justice. 30. Housing Society Ltd. vs. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 : AIR 2011 SC 2161 .]” 29. On the basis of aforesaid exposition of law, we have no hesitation in holding that the rejection of the claim of petitioner in the instant case merely on technical ground of delay and laces will defeat the ends of justice. 30. At the same time, we are not unmindful of the fact that the contract in issue relates to bulk transportation of petroleum products of a PSU which has an element of public service and interest involved in it. More than half the contract period is already over. An abrupt disruption of contract at this stage may prove detrimental to the interests of public at large, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we for the time being deem it expedient in the interest of justice to pass the following directions: The Board of Directors of HPCL is directed to constitute a special team of its officials, holding sufficiently high ranks and unconnected with the affairs of finalization of contract in issue between HPCL and Sai Roadways, to inquire into all the issues involved in the instant case and to take appropriate action against the wrong doers, if any, in accordance with law. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this judgment and compliance shall be reported to this Court. 31. The petition is allowed to above extent and is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. 32. List for compliance on 25.10.2021.