ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “A writ of certiorari to quash the action of the respondent Corporation in issuing a supplementary detailed notice Tender No. 21000697-HD-10157 dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-8) to seeks to fill shortfall requirement in the original DNIT dated 23.07.2018, from third parties because firstly, the shortfall of tank trucks/requirement of additional tank trucks as may arise during the term of the earlier DNIT Tender No. 21000697-HD-10157 dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) till 30.09.2023 is supposed to filled through existing/ successful transporters, including the petitioners; secondly the DNIT No. 2, has been issued to open a back door for contractors who were either unsuccessful in DNIT No. 1 or did not participate at all or have been terminated in DNIT No. 1 because of malpractices; thirdly, the petitioners are not allowed to participate DNIT No. 2; fourthly, the tenderers who are already terminated, or nearing termination were already aware about this DNIT No. 2, much in advance and have got vehicles prepared much before the issuance of the DNIT so that they can participate in the DNIT No. 2 and which reflects the collusion of respondent no. 3 with the said participants; fifthly, the action of the respondent amounts to digression from the deviation from the terms of the DNIT dated 23.07.2018, which is against the law laid down in the case of W.B. S.E.B. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. 2001 (2) SCC 451 . And/or A writ of mandamus/order/direction to the respondent corporation, to issue a notice for filing up the requirement, created on account of shortfall/additional requirement, through the existing transporters, including the petitioners and not through third parties. And/or During the pendency stay the consequential proceedings, in reference or pursuance to issuing a supplementary detailed notice Tender No. 21000697-HD-10157 dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-8).” 2. The facts setting the backdrop of the case are that respondent No. 1 issued Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (for short ‘DNIT’) dated 23.07.2018 for transportation of bulk POL products by road Ex-Nalagarh IRD. The working period as proposed in DNIT was 1.10.2018 to 30.09.2023. The anticipated volume to be moved for first three years and balance two years i.e. 4th and 5th years was prescribed as under: S. No. Sector Volume in KL White oils 1st to 3rd year 4th and 5th year 1. The working period as proposed in DNIT was 1.10.2018 to 30.09.2023. The anticipated volume to be moved for first three years and balance two years i.e. 4th and 5th years was prescribed as under: S. No. Sector Volume in KL White oils 1st to 3rd year 4th and 5th year 1. Within FDZ (“Free Delivery Zone” that is, upto 39 RTKM) 75284 69601 2. Beyond FDZ 760996 700946 3. Polhilly-2 44156 42873 4. Polhilly-3 343520 347863 3. Similarly, anticipated Tank Trucks (for short ‘TTs’) requirement for first three years and last two years i.e. 4th and 5th years was prescribed as under: S. No. Description WHITE OILS 1st to 3rd year 4th and 5th year 1. Tank TRUCKS WITH Capacity of 12 KL and above 48 31 2. Tank trucks with Capacity of 18 KL and above 135 40 Tender No. 18000298 HD-10157 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Page 4 of 132 Transportation Ex-Nalagarh IRD Tender for Road transportation of Bulk POL products: MS/HSD and Branded fuels 4. On the basis of criteria prescribed in DNIT, various transporters including the petitioners were awarded work. First three years of work period expired on 30.09.2021. During this period, three transporters, who were successful in DNIT, were blacklisted for their defaults. They lost the legal battle also and consequently ‘TTs’ as provided by such transporters were taken off the work resulting in additional requirement of TTs. 5. In order to fulfill the shortfall caused by the aforesaid exigency and also to cope up with the additional requirement, respondent No. 1 has issued tender for the remaining working period of DNIT on 12.11.2021 (for short 2nd DNIT). 6. Petitioners have taken exception to the mode adopted by respondent No. 1 for the purposes of meeting its additional requirement of TTs by way of instant writ petition on the grounds which can be broadly categorized as under: (i) The shortfall of TTs/requirement of additional TTs during term of DNIT is required to be filled through existing/successful transporters, including the petitioners. (ii) Fresh tender has been issued to open a back door for the transporters who either were unsuccessful in DNIT or did not participate at all or had been blacklisted/terminated because of malpractices. (iii) Petitioners are not allowed to participate in the tender dated 12.11.2021. (ii) Fresh tender has been issued to open a back door for the transporters who either were unsuccessful in DNIT or did not participate at all or had been blacklisted/terminated because of malpractices. (iii) Petitioners are not allowed to participate in the tender dated 12.11.2021. The already terminated tenderers or those who were nearing termination are in collusion with respondent No. 3 and were in the knowledge of tender dated 12.11.2021 beforehand and had thus made preparation accordingly. (iv) Respondent No. 1 is barred from deviating from the terms of DNIT. 7. Respondents have contested the claim of petitioners on the grounds that existing transporters including the petitioners were given an opportunity vide letter dated 04.03.2021 to provide additional TTs in line with the terms and conditions of DNIT. In response, petitioners had submitted their offers, but such offers were not considered as the petitioners were not successful transporters in 18KL and above category in DNIT and as such they could not claim themselves to be successful transporters for said category in DNIT. The process initiated vide tender dated 12.11.2021 is stated to be in terms of the guidelines/circulars adopted by respondent No. 1. As per respondents, there is no bar for the petitioners to participate in the tender in question. It has been alleged that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are even participating in the tender dated 12.11.2021. M/s Monica Road lines has submitted its bid and has offered 4 TTs of 12KL category and 1 TT of 18KL category whereas, M/s Ashu Goyal has submitted bid as a sole proprietor offering three TTs under 18KL category. The sole proprietor M/s Ashu Goyal is the wife of Mr. Aakash Goyal, sole proprietor of the petitioner firm. 8. Petitioners in their rejoinder have reiterated their stand taken in the petition. 9. Keeping in view the nature of controversy raised by petitioners by way of instant petition, the petition has been heard at admission stage after completion of pleadings. We have heard Mr. Kshitij Sharma Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Bipin Negi Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for the Respondents. 10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we deem it necessary to reiterate the limited jurisdiction of this Court while dealing with the Government contracts. We have heard Mr. Kshitij Sharma Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Bipin Negi Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for the Respondents. 10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we deem it necessary to reiterate the limited jurisdiction of this Court while dealing with the Government contracts. After taking notice of various precedents underlining the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of Government contracts, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1846/2022 titled as M/s N.G. Projects Limited vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and Others, decided on 21st March, 2022 has held as under: “23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present-day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a mala-fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 11. Keeping in view the existence of restrictive jurisdiction of this Court in matters of Government contracts, we now propose to deal with the respective submissions made by the parties. 12. Keeping in view the existence of restrictive jurisdiction of this Court in matters of Government contracts, we now propose to deal with the respective submissions made by the parties. 12. Petitioners have claimed first right of consideration for the award of work created either as a consequence of blacklisting of successful transporters under DNIT or as a result of additional requirement found to exist by respondent No. 1. Petitioners have based their claim by placing reliance on Note No. ‘C’ appended at page 4 of DNIT as also the Clause No. 14 of the chapter dealing with “price evaluation of the tenders” finding mention at page 113. 13. Note ‘C’ and clause-14 supra read as under: “(c) At the time of finalization of the tender, Tank Trucks upto requirement of first three years shall be inducted. The additional Tank Trucks indicated in the subsequent years shall be met by inducting Tank Trucks from the existing transporters, in a phased manner to meet the market demand and as per HPCL discretion.” 14. In case of shortfall of Tank Trucks receive against the tender or due to non-placement of Tank Trucks by any of the tenderers afterwards, additional Tank Trucks will be inducted from the remaining set of successful Transporters who have been issued LOA in that category (i.e. 12Kl or 18KL). The additional Tank Trucks will be inducted at L1 rate only.” 14. From the reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that both have been designed to operate in different situations. Whereas, note ‘C’ takes care of a definite foreseen requirement that was to exist at the time of completion of first three years of working period, clause 14 was to deal with somewhat contingent condition. 15. Petitioners are trying to stake claim to fulfill the requirement of Respondent No. 1 under clause 14 above by providing additional TTs. Under Clause 14 the existing transporters/remaining set of successful transporters who had been issued LOA in that category (i.e. 12KL or 18KL) only are eligible. In the given facts of the case, the requirement for tank trucks has arisen firstly on account of blacklisting of certain successful transporters in the DNIT and secondly, on account of additional demand. As is evident from the document Annexure P-14 relied upon by the petitioners, they were successful in DNIT in respect of less than 18KL category. In the given facts of the case, the requirement for tank trucks has arisen firstly on account of blacklisting of certain successful transporters in the DNIT and secondly, on account of additional demand. As is evident from the document Annexure P-14 relied upon by the petitioners, they were successful in DNIT in respect of less than 18KL category. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had offered two TTs of 12KL and 5 TTs of 18KL each, but they were successful in respect of 2 TTs each of less than 18KL category only. Petitioner No. 3 had offered only one TT of less than 18KL category and same was allotted to him. None of the petitioners were successful in allotment of work for 18KL or above category, therefore, they cannot be allowed to take benefit of Clause 14 supra of DNIT, according to which only those transporters would be eligible to fulfill the shortfall of tank trucks in given exigencies who were successful and had been issued LOA in that category. Since none of the petitioners qualified under aforesaid clause, the claim preferred by them is untenable. 16. Petitioners, in our considered view, cannot take benefit of Note ‘C’ above in the given facts and circumstances of the case firstly for the reason that it has application in a different situation, as noticed above and secondly the term ‘existing transporters’ used in note ‘c’ has to be construed having same meaning as the term “successful transporters who have been issued LOA in that category” used in clause 14. 17. Nothing tangible has been placed on record by the petitioners to prove the allegations regarding opening of back door for allegedly ineligible transporters or alleged connivance of such transporters with respondent No. 3. Mere ipse-dixit of petitioners is not sufficient to prove serious allegations as raised by the petitioners. 18. Respondents have categorically submitted that there is no bar for the petitioners to participate in the tender dated 12.11.2021. Respondents have even alleged that petitioner No. 1 albeit indirectly and petitioner No. 2 directly had already submitted their bids in response to tender dated 12.11.2021. Merely because petitioners are not in a position to compete in process of priority cannot afford them a cause of action to challenge the entire process. 19. The petitioners have also not been able to make out a case of deviation of the terms of DNIT. Merely because petitioners are not in a position to compete in process of priority cannot afford them a cause of action to challenge the entire process. 19. The petitioners have also not been able to make out a case of deviation of the terms of DNIT. Respondent No. 1 being employer is well within its right to have selection of transporters in the best interest of its works. Petitioners, especially in the given facts of the case, cannot impose their will on the employer. Petitioners have failed to prove any mala-fide or arbitrariness in the administrative action or the decision-making process of the respondents. Keeping in mind the interdict on the jurisdiction of this Court as observed in N.G Projects case supra, we do not find any merit in the case of the petitioners. 20. Further, the dispute raised by the petitioners is bereft of any tinge having public interest. It by all means is in domain of private contractual liability, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioners, if so advised, may have their remedy by seeking damages, if permissible under law. The public contracts cannot be allotted at the whims of private parties. 21. In the light of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.