JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 18.9.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.18484/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the above-referred writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a proprietor firm, had submitted its bid in response to the NIT (Annexure/1 of the writ petition) issued by the respondent-IOCL for road transportation of bulk petroleum products by tank trucks. The bid of the appellant was rejected and LOI was issued in the name of two truck operators i.e. M/s Aagolai Goods Carrier and M/s Jethi Devi. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred SBCWP No.6812/2022, wherein the learned Single Bench, while issuing notice to the respondents, has restrained the respondent-IOCL from issuing work order in favour of the above-referred two tank trucks operators. However, the respondent-IOCL, thereafter, issued gate notice dated 23.11.2022 inviting General Transport Contractors/Dealer-cum-Transport Contractors/RO Dealers, who are interested to offer their tank trucks for road transportation of bulk petroleum products, to submit their application in required format along with relevant supporting documents. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred writ petition alleging that the gate notice dated 23.11.2022 is an extension of original tender and with the said action of the respondent-IOCL, an attempt is made to frustrate the cause of the appellant as also to overreach the stay order dated 13.5.2022 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.6812/2022. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent-IOCL is giving backdoor entry to the undeserving persons by some way or the other. It is also contended that the respondent-IOCL had no urgency to invite applications vide gate notice dated 23.11.2022 for 20 tank trucks because sufficient number of tank trucks are available with the respondent-IOCL for regular supply of petroleum products to the retail outlets. 5. In response to the show cause notice, reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent-IOCL, wherein it is contended that the gate notice dated 23.11.2022 has been issued to fulfill the deficit of tank trucks caused due to non placement of tank trucks for own use by the dealers. 5. In response to the show cause notice, reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent-IOCL, wherein it is contended that the gate notice dated 23.11.2022 has been issued to fulfill the deficit of tank trucks caused due to non placement of tank trucks for own use by the dealers. It is further contended that the IOCL issues an expression of interest for the existing R.O. dealers, who want to give their own tank trucks for supply to their own retail outlets and when the existing R.Os. give their expression of interest, a general tender for transportation of bulk petroleum product is issued by the Corporation for the total number of requirement. It is further contended that though few R.O. dealers showed their expression of interest earlier, but later on, they did not fulfill the condition of supplying tank trucks and on account of that, the deficit caused and to fulfill the said deficit, the IOCL required to issue gate notice dated 23.11.2022. It is also contended that looking to the emergent situation and for regular supply of petroleum products to the retail outlets, the gate notice was issued. It is also contended that the respondent-IOCL has not issued the gate notice to overreach the stay order dated 13.5.2022 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.6812/2022. 6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the writ petition, while observing that the gate notice was issued to the General Transport Contractors/Dealer-cum-Transport Contractors/RO Dealers to fulfill the deficit caused on account of the fact that few dealers, who had earlier offered their tank trucks, have failed to provide the same for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products. The learned Singe Judge has also observed that as per Clause 8 of the tender, the respondent-IOCL was empowered to bridge the gap through a gate notice dated 23.11.2022. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge, has dismissed the writ petition vide order impugned. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on Clause 8 of the NIT is erroneous. It is submitted that Clause 8 of the NIT can be invoked in a case, where a location is closed and resited to a new location. However, in the present case, existing location was not closed and no new location is resited. It is submitted that Clause 8 of the NIT can be invoked in a case, where a location is closed and resited to a new location. However, in the present case, existing location was not closed and no new location is resited. Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, argued that dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge in view of Condition No.8 of the NIT is erroneous and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-IOCL has frankly admitted that Clause 8 of the NIT speaks about resitement of old location to a new location, but in the present case, no such situation exists. However, it is contended that the respondent-IOCL is very much empowered to issue gate notice inviting General Transport Contractors/Dealer-cum-Transport Contractors/RO Dealers under the existing contract offered through tank trucks for road transportation of bulk petroleum products as per Circular issued by it on 20th November, 2015. It is submitted that as some of the dealers, who had earlier offered their tank trucks for transportation of petroleum products, have failed to supply the tank trucks, the deficiency caused and to meet the said deficiency, the gate notice was issued. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has not only relied upon Clause 8 of the NIT, but has also taken into consideration the fact that the respondent-IOCL has issued the gate notice to meet the deficiency caused on account of action of few of the dealers, who have failed to supply tank trucks as offered by them earlier. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, prayed that no case for interference by this Court is made out and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The stand of the respondent-IOCL in support of issuance of gate notice is this that the same was issued to meet the deficiency caused on account of non supply of the required number of tank trucks by the R.O. dealers. It is noticed that the said stand of the respondent-IOCL has not been specifically contradicted by the appellant. 12. The stand of the respondent-IOCL in support of issuance of gate notice is this that the same was issued to meet the deficiency caused on account of non supply of the required number of tank trucks by the R.O. dealers. It is noticed that the said stand of the respondent-IOCL has not been specifically contradicted by the appellant. The Circular (Annexure/R-1) dated 20th November, 2015, issued by the respondent-IOCL, annexed with the reply to the writ petition filed by the IOCL, is regarding award of work order for tank trucks as per the NIT. Clause 4 of the said Circular reads as under : “4. After closure of tender, additional TTs requirement, either within the original NIT number or the revised NIT number can be inducted as under : i) From existing dealer/dealer-transporter/general transporters as per the provisions of DOA at established L1 rates. ii) In case demand is not fulfilled by action taken at 4(i) above, the Public Expression of Interest (EOI) is to be floated seeking offer at established L1 rates for the balance period of the contract.” 13. From the above, it is clear that even after closer of the tender, the respondent-IOCL can ask for additional tank trucks as per the requirement. 14. Resultantly, we do not find any force in this Special Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.