JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: CWP No.6816/2022: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and, by an appropriate writ order or direction: i. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the LOIs issued to the respondent No.2 and 3 in respect of notice inviting tender No.RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22; ii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to initiate a proper enquiry against the erring officials and the Respondent No.4 because of which respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 were illegal issued LOIs; iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed to petitioner; iv. Costs of the petitioner may be awarded to the petitioner.” CWP No.6812/2022: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and, by an appropriate writ order or direction: i. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the LOIs issued to the respondent No.2 and 3 in respect of notice inviting tender No.RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22; ii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to initiate a proper enquiry against the erring officials and the Respondent No.4 because of which respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 were illegal issued LOIs; iii. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to disqualify the respondent No.2 and 3 from future bidding and further directing the respondent No.1 to consider afresh the bid of the petitioner along with other bidders; iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed to petitioner; iv. Costs of the petitioner may be awarded to the petitioner.” CWP No.18484/2022: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and am appropriate writ/order/direction be issued to the Respondents to the following effect- I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction gate notice ref : RSO/OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1 Dated 23/11/2022 (Annx.3) may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction any order or action in pursuance to the gate notice (Annex.3) may also be declared illegal and hence quashed and set aside. III. II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction any order or action in pursuance to the gate notice (Annex.3) may also be declared illegal and hence quashed and set aside. III. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents be directed not to take any further action in name of supply of tank trucks in pursuance of gate notice dated 23.11.22 (Annex 3) IV. By an appropriate writ order or direction in the alternative, without prejudice to the aforesaid if the Hon’ble court deems it appropriate respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner company (who is in top sequence waiting under the earlier original tender) to give first offer to work for the completion of the supply under gate notice ref : RSO/OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1 Dated 23/11/2022 (Annx.3). V. By an appropriate writ order or direction respondents may kindly be directed that Tank trucks who had earlier being restrained from issuance of work order in pursuance of tender no. RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22 (Annx 1) may kindly not be allowed to participate in gate notice ref : RSO/ OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1 Dated 23/11/2022 (Annx.3) after attaching with new firm. VI. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners. VII. The Petitioner may be allowed with heavy cost against the Respondents.” CWP No.18732/2022: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition, call for the record and : i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Tender Notice dated 23.11.2022 (Annex-4) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. ii) In the alternative, without prejudice to above, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent be directed to permit the petitioner and to permit to apply in pursuant to the tender notice dt. 23.11.2022 treating them as existing transport contractor as they had already issued LOI in pursuant to the tender notice dated 23.11.2022. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Writ Petition No.6816/2022 is taken as a lead case for the adjudication in the said petition as also Writ Petition No.6812/2022; likewise, Writ Petition No.18484/2022 is taken as a lead case for the adjudication of the said petition as also Writ Petition No.18732/2022. 3. As the facts pleaded in the lead case, i.e. Writ Petition No.6816/2022 would reveal, the respondent no.5 issued a notice inviting tender no.RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22, Tender ID – 2021-NRO-141805_1 for road transportation of bulk petroleum products – MS/HSD/Branded Fuels at Jodhpur Terminal Salawas, wherein various terms and conditions were stipulated to be fulfilled by the prospective bidders, failing which they would not be allowed to participate in the tender process. 3.1. The due date for submission of the relevant documents for the tender was 02.11.2021 and the opening date of the tender was 03.11.2021; the petitioners submitted their documents on the due date in the MSE-General Category on booking slips. However, the petitioners’ technical bid was rejected, and instead the bids of respondents no.2 & 3 were accepted, and subsequently, Letters of Intent (LOIs) were issued to them. 3.2. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents no.1 & 5, in issuing the LOIs’ in favour of respondents no.2 & 3, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022 claiming the afore quoted reliefs. 4. 3.2. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents no.1 & 5, in issuing the LOIs’ in favour of respondents no.2 & 3, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022 claiming the afore quoted reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in writ petitions No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022, submitted that the respondents no.2 & 3 were not in possession of a valid Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) License on the date, when valid documents were required to be submitted, i.e. on 02.11.2021, instead the valid PESO license was issued to them on 15.11.2021, which was 13 days after the due date mentioned in the notice inviting tender; such temporary license was in clear contravention of the conditions so provided under the ‘General Terms’ in Clause 21 of the Notice Inviting Tender; whereas the petitioners had submitted their documents on the due date in the General Category with all the relevant documents, yet their bids were not taken into consideration, instead respondents no.2 & 3 were awarded the Letter of Intent (LOI) by the respondents no.1 & 5. 4.1. It was further submitted that the bidders were required to give ‘declaration’ with regard to employees who are either related to or relatives of officers of the Oil Company/Central Government/ State Government, however, respondents no.2 & 3 failed to disclose the fact that the respondent no.4 is the son-in-law of respondent no.2 and further respondent no.3 was working as the Operation Manager in Respondent no.1 company at Salawas, which is in complete contravention of the Declaration ‘II’ given in the terms & conditions of the tender. 4.2. It was also submitted that as per the relevant office orders issued by the State of Rajasthan, in accordance with the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 2019, the registration of any vehicle will only be at one place, yet respondent no.1 did not take into account the fact that both the respondents no.2 & 3 had different addresses for registration and obtaining the PESO license. 4.3. Learned counsel, in support of such submissions, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/s Anoj Kumar Garwala, (Civil Appeal No. 1049/2019, decided on 23.01.2019). 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Deputy S.G.; Mr.Manoj Bhadari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar, Mr. Nishant Bora and Mr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Deputy S.G.; Mr.Manoj Bhadari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar, Mr. Nishant Bora and Mr. R.S. Rathore, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 5.1. It was submitted that that PESO itself had issued certificates on 01.11.2021 for 15 vehicles and it was not a temporary registration certificate but was a license issued by the PESO and the same was is from the number given to each and every tank truck. In furtherance, it was submitted that only calibration certificate was required to be issued by the company i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) with regard to the calibration of each and every vehicle and the same was always done subsequent to issuance of license by PESO. 5.2. It was further submitted that on 20.05.2022, PESO had issued a clarification letter with regard to the licenses issued on 01.11.2021, stating therein, to treat the aforesaid permissions as permanent licenses. In furtherance, it was submitted that the letter dated 15.11.2021 issued by PESO was only an approval after submission of the calibration certificates that the license which issued on 01.11.2021 was in accordance with law. 5.3. It was further submitted that the respondents no.2 & 3 had already made ‘declarations’ while filing the tender documents in accordance with law, and thus, allegation of there being malfeasance on account of relations, as levelled by the petitioners, was absolutely false and baseless. 5.4. It was also submitted that the reasons for rejection after technical evaluation was informed to all the bidders including the petitioners and a summary report was uploaded on the e-tendering portal, whereby bid of petitioner-M/s Girdhari Singh Shekhawat Tankers was rejected as it had applied in the MSEGENERAL Category on booking slips; however bidding on the basis of booking slips was only for bidders applying under SC/ST Category and petitioner-Rajputana Transport Company though technically qualified in the tender and also participated in the Reverse Auction Process, however allocation of tank trucks got completed at a seniority higher than the one achieved by the petitioner. 5.5. It was further submitted that the bids were evaluated on the basis of the submitted documents after verifying the documents with the available means i.e. details available on the internet portals of the agencies, and thus, the documents were verified on Vahaan & PESO portals. 5.5. It was further submitted that the bids were evaluated on the basis of the submitted documents after verifying the documents with the available means i.e. details available on the internet portals of the agencies, and thus, the documents were verified on Vahaan & PESO portals. In furtherance, it was submitted that by the communication dated 01.11.2021 of the Deputy Controller of Explosives, permission had been given by PESO to respondent no.2 & 3 for carrying of petroleum products for one month i.e. till 30.11.2021; subsequently on verification at PESO website, the tank trucks had license to carry petroleum product valid upto 14.11.2026, thereafter by communication dated 20.05.2022 PESO itself issued a clarification that the permissions issued on 01.11.2022 be treated as permanent license. 5.6. It was also submitted that the calibration certificate with regard to tank trucks was not a mandatory document nor mentioned in the list of documents required for issuance of license of tank lorry in Form XI, but was instead an additional confirmation document for petroleum carrying tank issued by the Department of Legal Metrology of the State, and since the calibration certificate was not received, the permission was granted for one month; thereafter on receipt of calibration certificate, licenses were issued in Form XI for carrying petroleum class A/B in tank lorry as per Petroleum Rules, 2002 on 15.11.2021 valid upto 14.11.2026. 5.7. It was also submitted that such permissions had been issued by the organization in the past as well and the safety of the tank lorry had not been compromised while issuing permission for transportation of Petroleum Class A/B. 6. As per the facts pleaded in the lead case, i.e. Writ petition No.18484/2022, the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of petroleum products and the above mentioned tender was issued, wherein the petitioner participated as a bidder, however, the LOIs were issued to the other two bidders i.e. respondents No.2 & 3 in WP Nos.6816/2022 & 6812/2022. Thereafter, during hearing of the above mentioned writ petitions, Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 13.05.2022 ordered stay on the issuance of the work orders i.e. the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the above-said two bidders who were issued the LOIs. 6.1. Thereafter, during hearing of the above mentioned writ petitions, Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 13.05.2022 ordered stay on the issuance of the work orders i.e. the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the above-said two bidders who were issued the LOIs. 6.1. However, the respondent Company-IOCL issued a bulk POL transport gate notice No.RSO/OPS/JDH/PT-105/IND/GN/22-23/1 for 20 tank trucks on 23.11.2022 whereby the interested general transport contractors/dealers cum transport contractors /RO dealers under the existing transport contract were called upon to offer their tank trucks for road transportation of bulk petroleum products ex-Jodhpur at L1 rates finalised in the above-mentioned tender. Aggrieved of the impugned notice, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ petitions No. 18484/2022 & 18732/2022 claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notice was an extension of the original tender (abovementioned), and thus, no new tender was floated by the respondent Company-IOCL, instead it was in addition and was issued to meet the instant demands of transportation from the existing transport contractors. In furtherance, it was submitted that by way of the impugned notice, the respondent Company-IOCL was trying to overreach the stay order as passed by this Hon’ble Court on 13.05.2022, by procuring its requirement and the same in turn is rendering the writ petition no. 6812/2022 as infructuous. 7.1. It was also submitted that the even though the petitioner-Rajputana Transport Company was eligible for grant of LOI, the same was not awarded to it, and thereafter even though the petitioner company was in the waiting list, yet by way of the impugned notice, the petitioner company was ousted from even participating in the gate notice as the same was reserved only for the existing contractors. 7.2. In furtherance, it was submitted that the petitioner-M/s Agolai Goods Career (Respondent no.2 in writ petition no. 6816/2022 & 6812/2022) had already been issued work order by the respondent-Company-IOCL prior to passing of the interim order, and for that purpose, appropriate amount had already been deposited by the petitioner company; however due to the stay order, the tank trucks were lying in limbo and presently due to the impugned notice, the petitioner company had been ousted from providing the tank trucks. 7.3. 7.3. It was further submitted that there was no urgency for procuring the said tank trucks as the respondent Company-IOCL was already procuring the same on ad hoc basis for 30+30+30 days every couple of months. 8. On the other hand, the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, have been opposed on behalf of the respondents. 8.1. It was submitted that the impugned gate notice was issued to fulfill the deficit of tank trucks caused due to the non placement of tank trucks for own use by dealers. 8.2. It was further submitted that the respondent Company-IOCL had issued an Expression Of Interest (EOI) ref: RSO/POL/BULK/JDH/EOI/2022-2025 for the existing R.O. dealers to give their own tank trucks for supply to their own retail outlets and the same was finalized prior to floating of the General Transportation Tender and after arriving at the number of Tank trucks available for own supplies through the EOI, balance requirement of transport category tank trucks were calculated and general transportation public tender was floated vide tender ref: RCC/NR/RSO/OPS/PT-105/21-22, however few dealers who had earlier offered tank trucks in the above EOI did not place those tank trucks creating a deficit, thus made it necessary to induct 20 tank trucks against the said deficit through the impugned Gate Notice. 8.3. It was also submitted that such induction of tank trucks by notice was issued in accordance with corporation policy ref: OP/PKY/Transport (Circular 80) dated 20.11.2015 and such induction was not related to the fulfillment of deficit of 30 tank trucks caused due to stay of issuance of work order to the respondents no. 2 & 3 of the above-said WP No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022. 8.4. It was further submitted that as per the tender condition Clause no.4 of Terms & Conditions of tender, respondent Company-IOCL at its discretion could divide the work among contractor(s) and engage additional tank trucks; also as per Clause no.8, respondent Company-IOCL could issue a gate notice in an event requiring the company additional tank trucks. 8.5. It was also submitted that the respondent Company-IOCL was taking temporary induction of tank trucks to fulfill the deficit, so caused by the stay order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above two writ petitions (No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022). 8.5. It was also submitted that the respondent Company-IOCL was taking temporary induction of tank trucks to fulfill the deficit, so caused by the stay order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above two writ petitions (No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022). Thus, 20 tank trucks were to be inducted through the gate notice in question; however the same would not affect the right of the petitioners in the matter of pending original tender; here the respondent Company-IOCL, through the impugned notice, was only trying to plug the gap, in pursuance of the stay order. 9. Heard learned counsels for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with judgment cited at the bar. 10. In Writ Petitions No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022, this Court observes that the respondents no.1 & 5 issued the tender in question for road transportation of bulk petroleum products, prospective bidders submitted the relevant documents by the due date and thereafter respondents no.2 & 3 were issued the Letter of Intent (LOIs’), aggrieved of the LOIs so issued in their favour, the petitioners preferred the said instant writ petitions. 10.1.This Court further observes that the respondents no. 2 & 3 had received permission to carry petroleum products of Class A/B on 01.11.2021 as can be seen from the communication of the Deputy Controller of Explosives (PESO) to the respondents no.2 & 3; relevant portion of the said communication dated 01.11.2021 is reproduced as under: “1. Pending submission of duly attested calibration certificate, you are permitted to carry 22 KL (5,5,4,4,4KL) of petroleum class A/B in the subject tanker for one month from the date of issue of this letter or grant of license whichever is earlier. You are also advised to take all safety precautions as per the provisions of Petroleum rules 2002 while using the subject tanker for transportation/ loading / unloading of petroleum product.” 10.2. You are also advised to take all safety precautions as per the provisions of Petroleum rules 2002 while using the subject tanker for transportation/ loading / unloading of petroleum product.” 10.2. This Court further observes that PESO (license issuing authority) itself admitted that after the permissions were given, only calibration certificate was required, and the same was not a mandatory document for issuance of license, but an additional confirmation, and thus, the permission had been initially given for a period of one month; thereafter once the calibration certificate was received, on 15.11.2021 the licenses were granted with validity till 14.11.2026; a clarification letter had further been issued by the PESO on 20.05.2022 with regard to the permissions given to respondents no.2 & 3 on 01.11.2021 stating therein that the same were permanent licenses and thus, be treated as such; relevant portion of communications dated 20.05.2022 is reproduced as hereunder: “Please refer to your letter no. nil dated 20/5/2022 regarding the subject matter, it is clarified that permissions have been issued by this office on 01/11/2021 to transport petroleum product in the following tanker . . . . . . . Aforesaid permissions for these tankers shall be treated as permanent licence to transport petroleum product in tankers and have the same effect as permanent licence.” 10.3. This Court also observes that the respondent Company-IOCL had verified the documents of both the bidders – respondents no.2 & 3 on the concerned web portals and only then their bids had been accepted, resulting in the issuance of the Letter of Intent (LOIs) to them. 10.4. In the above backdrop, this Court observes that since the permissions were granted on 01.11.2021 for carrying petroleum products of Class A/B, and further, on 20.05.2022, the PESO itself clarified that the said permissions were to be treated as permanent licenses, therefore, it is clear that there was no violation of Clause 21 of the Tender and that the said permissions were not temporary licenses, as claimed on behalf of the petitioners. 10.5. This Court also observes that the judgment cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners also does not render any assistance to their case. 11. 10.5. This Court also observes that the judgment cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners also does not render any assistance to their case. 11. In Writ Petitions No. 18484/2022 & 18732/2022, this Court observes that the respondent Company-IOCL in pursuance of the stay order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 13.05.2022, issued the impugned gate notice to fulfill the deficit of tank trucks caused due to the non placement of tank trucks for own use by the dealers; however, the petitioners in the said writ petitions were aggrieved since they were unable to apply for offering their own tank trucks. 11.1. This Court further observes that the impugned notice was issued only to the general transport contractors/dealer cum transport contractors/R.O. dealers under the existing transport contract, and thus, the petitioners could not have participated in the gate notice dated 23.11.2022, as they were not existing transporters of the respondent Company-IOCL. 11.2. This Court also observes that the respondent Company-IOCL had issued the aforesaid EOI for obtaining the offers of tanks trucks for own supplies of the Dealers/direct customers only and thereafter calculation of the number of tank trucks available for own supplies through the EOI was arrived at, and in furtherance, the balance amount of tank trucks required was calculated; thereafter, the above-said general transportation tender was floated; however due to a few dealers who had earlier offered tank trucks in the EOI did not fulfill the supply of tank trucks, and thus, a deficit was caused. 11.3. In furtherance, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed a stay order dated 13.05.2022 on the issuance of work orders to the bidders (respondent no.2 & 3 in the above writ petitions No.6816/2022 & 6812/2022), whose tender was accepted and had been granted the LOIs, which in turn delayed the process of procuring tank trucks for transportation of the bulk petroleum products, and thus, for the above-stated reasons, it became an impediment on the respondent Company-IOCL to issue the impugned gate notice for 20 tank trucks. 11.4. This Court further observes that as per Clause 8 of the tender, on an occasion which requires additional tank trucks, the respondent Company-IOCL was empowered to bridge the gap through a gate notice to existing willing contractors; relevant portion of the said Clause 8 is reproduced as hereunder: “8. 11.4. This Court further observes that as per Clause 8 of the tender, on an occasion which requires additional tank trucks, the respondent Company-IOCL was empowered to bridge the gap through a gate notice to existing willing contractors; relevant portion of the said Clause 8 is reproduced as hereunder: “8. Resitement of an old top loading location to a new top loading location – In case a location is closed and resited to a new location (where closed location and resited location are both top-loading locations), Company will have right to direct Contractors to shift to the new location without any compensation and at the same rate, terms and conditions. Those Contractors who wish to withdraw from the pool or not offer TTs at the same terms and conditions will be allowed to do so. In such an event where Company will require additional TTs (gap created from NIT Nos. vs. TTs not offered during re-sitement) option will be given to existing willing Contractors to bridge the gap through a gate notice and if requirement is not met from existing Contractors, then, Company reserves the right to go for NIT or Public EOI.” 11.5. In furtherance, procuring of the 20 tank trucks was necessary to fulfill the deficit in order to maintain the supply of bulk petroleum products and to avoid a state of chaos among the general public. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 13. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.