ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/orders/direction declaring the impugned NITs (ANNEXURE P-1) issued by the Respondents to the extent of arbitrary conditions prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender under clause 4) of the Special Terms and conditions Age of the Tank Trucks prescribing different Age of vehicle offered based on the location instead of prescribing the uniform age for all location, as arbitrary, illegal and irrational. Consequently, the same may kindly be struck down. Consequently, the same may kindly be struck down. Resultantly the respondent be directed to uniformly prescribe the age of Tank Trucks so as to ensure the maximum safety; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/orders/direction declaring the impugned NITS (ANNEXURE P-1) issued by the Respondents to the extent of declaring clause 12 under the Price Evaluation of the tenders which prescribes for further ranking in case the Tank Trucks offered are more than the requirement being arbitrary and as discriminatory, consequently, the same may kindly be struck down; 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/orders/direction declaring the impugned NITS (ANNEXURE P-1) issued by the Respondents to the extent of restriction imposed under Pre-Qualification Criteria restricting the petitioner who has participated in the NIT on the booking slip by arbitrarily prescribing that the tenderers with booking slip TT will not be considered for arriving at Sub Ranking, as being arbitrary and discriminatory, consequently the same may kindly be struck down; 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/orders/direction quashing the impugned corrigendum dated 21.07.2023 (ANNEXURE P 2) holding the same to be arbitrary and discriminatory; 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/orders/direction directing the Respondents to issue fresh NIT in accordance with law after amending/modifying the arbitrary and discriminatory conditions prescribed in the instant NIT; 10.7 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in furtherance of ensuring the rights of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for road transportation of bulk POL, Products: MS /HSD and branded fuels wherein under clause 4 of the special terms and conditions age of the Tank Trucks (for short, the TTs) has been prescribed, prescribing age of vehicle offered should not exceed 5 years for Mumbai Location / 7 years for NCR region/12 years for other locations, as on the due date/extended due date of tender. Whereas, for all locations it should be uniformly prescribed as 5 years to ensure the maximum safety. Whereas, for all locations it should be uniformly prescribed as 5 years to ensure the maximum safety. The object and rationale behind prescribing the age of TTs is to ensure safety, as such if the aforesaid condition is allowed to continue the very purpose and object of prescribing the age of TTs will be of no avail. Even otherwise, prescribing the different age of TTs based on the location is itself arbitrary. Further challenge is also to clause 12 under the price evaluation of the tenders which prescribes for further ranking in case the TTs offered are more than the requirement as under :- “12. In case, at a particular ranking (financial outgo ranking), Tank Trucks offered are more than the requirement, then the Tenderers in that particular ranking shall be further ranked based on the following order of priority and allocation shall be made only till the full requirement of Tank Trucks is met: 1. Number of owned Bottom Loading Trucks offered 2. Number of attached Bottom Loading Trucks offered 3. Number of total Owned trucks offered by the tenderer 4. Number of total Attached Trucks offered by the tenderer 5. Average Age of the Trucks offered 6. Number of Total Tank trucks offered by the tenderer.” 3. The petitioner alleges that preference is given to the big transporter who is having higher number of TTs. The aforesaid condition will oust the small transporter despite the fact that only five TTs are required to be inducted per transporter. Further, no preference is given to the age of the TTs, no preference is given to the capacity of TTs, no preference is given to the local transporter. Apart from this many transporter who have already engaged their TTs with other Oil Marketing Companies(OMC) like BPCL, IOCL etc. are also at liberty to offer those TTs for the present NIT and will be considered for sub-ranking as per clause 12 under the price evaluation of the tenders as mentioned above, as no restriction is imposed in the NIT for such tenderers. On the contrary, they would be given preference without even getting NOC from the OMC where their TTs are already inducted. NOC, if any, is required only after selection of TTs. On the other hand, under the pre-qualification criteria, it is prescribed that the TTs offered with booking slip will not be considered for sub-ranking. On the contrary, they would be given preference without even getting NOC from the OMC where their TTs are already inducted. NOC, if any, is required only after selection of TTs. On the other hand, under the pre-qualification criteria, it is prescribed that the TTs offered with booking slip will not be considered for sub-ranking. As such, discriminatory treatment is given to small transporter. All the conditions are being prescribed so as to benefit the big transporter. The petitioner also seeks to impugn the restriction imposed under pre-qualification criteria - restricting the petitioner who has participated in the NIT on the booking slip by arbitrarily prescribing that the tenderers with booking slip TT will not be considered for arriving at Sub Ranking, as being arbitrary and discriminatory. Further, the petitioner also seeks to impugn and challenge the corrigendum dated 21.07.2023 issued by the respondent authority mainly on two counts; firstly, the Carry Forward Quota (for short, the CFQ) for Scheduled Tribe (for short, the ST) category has been completely removed and at the same time giving benefit only to the Scheduled Caste (for short, SC) category, thereby, discriminating the petitioner who belongs to the ST Category. Initially, at the time when the tender was floated the CFQ for the ST category has been mentioned which has now been changed unilaterally by issuing the impugned corrigendum to the detriment of the Scheduled Tribe category. 4. Moreover, the impugned corrigendum under clause-1 further provides that irrespective of anything mentioned elsewhere in the tender document, the start date for the contracts to be finalized vide tender no. 23000257-HD 10157 will be 01.04.2024 and will be for a period of 5 years i.e. upto 31.03.2029. Initially, the period of 5 years was advertised w.e.f 01.10.2023 upto 30.09.2028. As per the requirement of the NIT, after the tenderer like the petitioner herein is eventually selected, which may be in the month of August 2023, will have to make the TTs physically available at the desired location within 90 days, which will be by November and thereafter for about 3-4 months i.e. till 01.04.2024 he will have to wait for actual induction of TTs which are ready for use. The TTs offered are exclusively made for transportation of POL products and cannot be used in any other transport operation, thus resulting in unnecessary financial implication with respect to payment of equated monthly installments of TTs for about 6-7 months, with their vehicle remaining idle and unused for the said period, which will also have adverse effect in performance of the vehicle for being lying idle for months together. Ultimately, safety and the prime object of safe and secure transportation will be jeopardized. 5. Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern represented through its proprietor Raj Wardhan Singh who belongs to ST category. The petitioner firm is also registered as a MSE enterprise and is thus was granted Udyam Registration Certificate. The respondents in this writ application are all instrumentalities/ authorities of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 6. Mr. Dadariya further submits that the petitioner being an MSE ST category enterprise participated under MSE ST category in the NIT bearing Tender no. 23000257-HD-10157 issued/floated by the respondent-HPCL for 'Road Transportation of Bulk POL products: MS / HSD and Branded fuels by road Ex Raipur IRD' on 26.06.2023. The petitioner submitted his bid on 27.07.2023 on the basis of booking slip for 5 number Ashok Leyland. U-3120 POL Chassis PESO approved 24 KL Capacity. But because of the arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory terms and conditions prescribed in the NIT, the participation of the petitioner would only be a futile exercise as there would be no chances of his selection and his bid being accepted, as compared to the transporter having higher number of TTs. Despite the fact that the capping on trucks allotment to the tenderers/bidders is restricted to maximum five TTs. The respondent-HPCL floated/invited digitally signed e-tenders under two bid system from persons, Sole Proprietorship, Partnership Firms registered with the Registrar of Firms, Registered Cooperative Society, Companies registered under Companies Act, 1956 for award of contract for transportation of bulk white petroleum products by road Ex. Raipur IRD for 5 years initially advertised for the period w.e.f 01.10.2023 upto 30.09.2028, thereafter by way of corrigendum the same was amended/modified for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2024 upto 31.03.2029. 7. Raipur IRD for 5 years initially advertised for the period w.e.f 01.10.2023 upto 30.09.2028, thereafter by way of corrigendum the same was amended/modified for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2024 upto 31.03.2029. 7. The NIT was invited for transportation of bulk white petroleum products by road Ex Raipur IRD for 5 years and the anticipated Volume to be transported for First 3 years, 4th & 5th years of the contract is as under : “1. Within FDZ ("Free Delivery Zone", that is, up to 39 RTKM(Round Trip Kilo Meter) 1,30,258 KL (1st to 3rd year) & 1,00,968 KL (4th & 5th year) 2. Beyond FDZ 7,49,634 KL (1" to 3rd year) 5,77,218 KL (4th & 5th year)” 8. The estimated TTs requirement from transporters is as under : Sr. No. Description 1st to 3rd year (initial induction) 1st to 3rd year (Additional induction on need basis) 4th & 5th year 1. Tank trucks with Capacity of 12 KL & above and less than 18 KL. 30 10 10 2. Tank trucks with Capacity of 18 KL & Above but less than 25 KL 65 20 20 3. Tank trucks with Capacity of 25 KL & above 10 5 5 9. That, the last date for submission of the online bid as per NIT was 20.07.2023 till 14:30 hours which was extended till 28.07.2023 till 14:30 hours vide corrigendum -Due Date Extension date 18.07.2023. Thereafter, it was extended till 28.08.2023 till 15:00 hours by another corrigendum dated 28.07.2023 was issued. Vide corrigendum dated 21.07.2023, the carry forward quota for ST category has been completely removed and at the same time giving benefit only to the SC category. The due date has further been extended to 28.08.2023 and thereafter upto 28.09.2023. 10. As per the NIT, the Reservation & Purchase Preference Category wise TT requirement is detailed at clause (iv) of the tender notice (page 4 of the tender document), initially, the ST carry forward quota prescribed was 2 TT's under 12-<18 KL and 9 TT's under 18-25 KL capacity which are unfilled quota of the previous Tender i.e Tender no. 18000140-HD-10157 which has been carried forward for the instant tender and the same has been considered for arriving at the SC/ST reservation. However the same has been prorated basis the TT requirement. 18000140-HD-10157 which has been carried forward for the instant tender and the same has been considered for arriving at the SC/ST reservation. However the same has been prorated basis the TT requirement. Now, by the impugned corrigendum dated 21.07.2023, the same has been completely omitted/removed and on the other hand the quota for SC category have not been removed/omitted. 11. Mr. Dadariya submits that the aforesaid action of the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned corrigendum clearly show discrimination against the petitioner and like category tenderers who belong to the ST category as against the SC Category candidate. As per note (iv) of Attachment -1 at page 128 of the NIT, it is mentioned that- Bidders under MSE SC/ST categories will be considered for evaluation in SC/ST category in following scenario- Entire quota under MSE is exhausted; they fulfill all norms of belonging considered under SC/ST category, as such the petitioner who belongs to MSE-ST category have a right to be considered for selection under ST category. Further, the NIT provides that the respondent-Corporation reserves the right to carryout 'Online Reverse Auction' with techno commercially accepted bidders for determining the lowest bidder for the requirements mentioned in this tender enquiry. Reverse auction shall be conducted only when there are at least two or more "Techno-commercially" accepted vendors at Technical evaluation stage. The NIT further prescribes that the HPCL will display Start Bid price i.e., Bench Mark price which shall be the lower of the price bids submitted by the bidders on the e-procurement portal i.e. Bids opened for RA event' or HPCL's in-house estimate), which shall be visible to all the vendors at the start of the Reverse Auction. 12. Clause 6 under the Tender Notice provides for 'Pre-Bid Meeting' (page 8 of the tender document) wherein there is a specific provision for conducting pre-bid meeting in order to maintain transparency and to sort out the confusions and query related to the various clauses of the NIT, which reads as under : “6. Pre-Bid Meeting: Pre-Bid meeting will be conducted at the Raipur IRD. The bidders who wish to participate through online mode can attend the meeting through Zoom. The meeting details are provided below: Meeting Date and time: 13.07.2023, 1100 Hrs. Meeting ID: 945 4282 8257 Passcode: 753693 Link:https://hpelin. zoom.us/j/94542828257?pwd- dGd3cE4vazZFROhubTgrb2c3Q0pIUT09 One tap mobile India: +918064802722,94542828257#,... 753693# or +918071279440, 94542828257#,....*753693#” 13. Mr. Pre-Bid Meeting: Pre-Bid meeting will be conducted at the Raipur IRD. The bidders who wish to participate through online mode can attend the meeting through Zoom. The meeting details are provided below: Meeting Date and time: 13.07.2023, 1100 Hrs. Meeting ID: 945 4282 8257 Passcode: 753693 Link:https://hpelin. zoom.us/j/94542828257?pwd- dGd3cE4vazZFROhubTgrb2c3Q0pIUT09 One tap mobile India: +918064802722,94542828257#,... 753693# or +918071279440, 94542828257#,....*753693#” 13. Mr. Dadariya further submits that the very purpose of the pre-bid meeting instead of resolving issues related to the terms and conditions of the NIT empty formality has been done and for certain queries the parties/tenderers are relegated to take help of legal consultation. The aforesaid action of the respondent authorities clearly established that certain conditions are arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory which are not even clear to the authorities. In the NIT- 'Instructions to Bidders' provides that the eligible bidders are required to submit their offer in two-parts 'Techno Commercial Bid' and 'Price Bid'. Both the bids are to be submitted online as digitally signed bids at site http:/ etender.hpcl.co.in/ alongwith the documents as required in the tender. As per 'Pre-Qualification Criteria' (page 29 of the tender document) - Bidders to offer minimum 5 ready built TTs out of which at least three trucks shall be owned. Preference to transporters offering bottom loading TTs under sub ranking on matching L1 (Applicable for HPCL locations where VRU and Bottom Loading facility is commissioned). Further, for SC/ST transporters: SC/ST transporters shall be allowed to participate with a minimum of two TTs out of which one shall be owned. In case TTS offered are more than two, minimum 60% of the total TTs shall be owned. SC/ST can participate with booking slip. However booking slip TT will not be considered for arriving at Sub Ranking. Tank Trucks under Booking slip: Bidders, who wish to offer Tank trucks of any approved capacity which are not in their possession as on the due date/extended due date of tender can also participate along with a booking slip & an affidavit in the prescribed format that they will have physical possession of the vehicle along with all statutory licenses within 90 days from the date of issue of LOA. 14. 14. Further, as per Special Terms and Conditions (page 31 of the tender document)- Offer of Tank Trucks on Booking Slip for SC/ST Bidders: prescribes that the SC/ST bidders who wish to offer tank truck of any approved capacity which are not in their possession as on the date of tender can also participate along with a booking slip and an affidavit in the prescribed format that they will have physical possession of the vehicle along with all statutory licenses within 90 days from the date of issue of LOA. It further arbitrarily discriminates such tenderers by casting further restriction that the TTs offered with booking slip will not be considered for sub ranking. In case of shortfall after induction of all physical TTs under SC/ST category, opportunity will be given to booking slip TTs. Existing procedure mentioned as in case of SC/ST category bidders will be adopted for allotment. The NIT further provides for restriction on the age of TTs on the arbitrary and discriminatory basis on the basis of location. The age of the TTs are prescribed to ensure maximum safety and also to ensure that the age old TTs are not inducted. If the old TT is not safe for a particular location, it is unsafe for other locations also and as such, uniform age of the TTs should be prescribed irrespective of the location where the same is to be inducted. The aforesaid unreasonable criteria is provide under clause 4 under special Terms and Conditions which reads as under “4. Age of the Tank Trucks:- Age of vehicle offered should not exceed 5 years for Mumbai Location / 7 years for NCR region/12 years for other locations, as on the Due Date/Extended due date of tender. Age of Tank Truck shall be reckoned from Manufacturing Date (Date/Month/year).” 15. Clause 12 under the Price Evaluation of the Tenders (page 65 of the tender document) further arbitrarily prescribes the sub-ranking which reads as under : “12. In case, at a particular ranking (financial outgo ranking). Tank Trucks offered are more than the requirement, then the Tenderers in that particular ranking shall be further ranked based on the following order of priority and allocation shall be made only till the full requirement of Tank Trucks is met.: 1. Number of owned Bottom Loading Trucks offered 2. Number of attached Bottom Loading Trucks offered 3. Tank Trucks offered are more than the requirement, then the Tenderers in that particular ranking shall be further ranked based on the following order of priority and allocation shall be made only till the full requirement of Tank Trucks is met.: 1. Number of owned Bottom Loading Trucks offered 2. Number of attached Bottom Loading Trucks offered 3. Number of total Owned trucks offered by the tenderer 4. Number of total Attached Trucks offered by the tenderer 5. Average Age of the Trucks offered 6. Number of Total Tank trucks offered by the tenderer. *Average Age of all the Trucks for a Transporter will be considered combining both the category. Note: Ranking will be done schedule wise i.e. separately for 12-<18KL, 18-<25KL and 25KL and above. After the bidders have been ranked/sub-ranked as per above criteria, allocation will be done in the following manner: 1. Owned Bottom Loading Trucks 2. Attached Bottom Loading Trucks 3. Owned Top Loading Tank trucks 4. Attached Top Loading Tank trucks However, it is to be noted that the Reservation / Purchase Preference will be applicable.” 16. The NIT, under clause 13 further prescribes for 'Capping on Trucks allotment to bidders' in case if the trucks offered at a particular rate is more than the number required at that rate. The same reads as under : “13. Capping on Truck Allotment to Bidders:- There is no limit to the number of trucks offered by any Bidder. After opening the price bid, if it is found trucks offered at a particular rate is more than the number required at that rate found that the number of trucks offered at a particular rate is more than the number required at that rate (total requirement in the schedule minus number available at rates starting from L-1 till this particular rate), then the maximum number of trucks allotted to a bidder will be capped at 5 (Five) trucks in the following manner: i. Capping will be applicable only if the number of trucks offered at a particular rate is more than the number required at that rate, as mentioned above. ii. In case there is a bidder who has offered more than 5 trucks overall in all the schedules at such rates where capping is applicable in all schedules for that bidder, a maximum of 5 trucks will be allotted to the bidder. iii. ii. In case there is a bidder who has offered more than 5 trucks overall in all the schedules at such rates where capping is applicable in all schedules for that bidder, a maximum of 5 trucks will be allotted to the bidder. iii. In case there is a bidder who has offered more than 5 trucks overall in all the schedules at such rates where capping is applicable in only in one schedule, maximum number of trucks allotted in that particular schedule will be capped in such a way that a maximum of 5 trucks are allotted to the bidder. iv. For capping, TT's will be excluded from allotment in the following order: first top loading trucks, and then trucks offered bottom loading. In each case, age of trucks will be considered and older trucks will be excluded first. However, the exclusion of trucks will also be considering that the tendered quantity in each schedule is fulfilled. v. For SC/ST/MSE bidders, above clauses will be applicable only if number of trucks received in the respective category is exceeding the corresponding quota. vi. In case of any dispute in allotment, HPCL's decision will be final. HPCL reserves the right to allocate business to the bidder in a manner to keep the overall outflow on minimum cost basis. vii. Capping of maximum no. of TT per transporter shall be applicable during tender stage and not applicable during shortfall induction. viii. TT's offered with booking slip will not be considered for sub ranking.” 17. It is further submitted by Mr. Dadariya that the unfilled quota of the previous Tender i.e. Tender no. 18000140-HD-10157 is very clear from the chart of ranking produced by the respondent in the other writ petition WPC no. 2342/2021 disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2021 which clearly shows that only 5 TT's have been inducted from the ST category out of total 16 TTs advertised in the previous tender under the ST Category, thus 11 TTs were rightly advertised/invited under ST CFQ in the instant NIT. But by way of the impugned corrigendum the same has been completely removed to the detriment of the petitioner who belongs to MSE ST category. But by way of the impugned corrigendum the same has been completely removed to the detriment of the petitioner who belongs to MSE ST category. The petitioner was under a bonafide belief that the benefits of the CFQ as provided under the NIT initially would accrue to him but because of the impugned corrigendum the same has been restricted and curtailed to considerable extent despite he being eligible for the same in all respect. 18. Mr. Dadariya also submits that the conditions of the NIT have mainly been formulated in order to give benefit to the big transporter who are bigger in fleet size of the TTs discriminating and curtailing the rights of the small transporter like the petitioner herein. Compromising the safety issue in transportation of the highly inflammable substance i.e MS/HSD in the instant case, tank Truck upto 12 years are being allowed to be offered. Even otherwise, safety cannot be compromised based on the location and the same should be uniform irrespective of the location. Such an arbitrary, irrational and Discriminatory conditions prescribed under the NIT is therefore liable to be quashed not only in the interest of the petitioner but for the public at large. Tthe petitioner being the ST Category tenderer who wish to participate under MSE-ST category by offer of the TTs which are not in his possession as on the date of tender and can participate alongwith the booking slip and affidavit in the prescribed format that they will have. physical possession of the vehicle alongwith all statutory licences within 90 days from the date of issue of LOA but at the same time, the restriction has been imposed that TTs offered with booking slip will not be considered for sub-ranking. On the other hand, the other transporters who have already inducted their TTs with other Oil Marketing Companies can offer those TTs and participate in the instant tender despite the same not readily available with them for being offered, as on the date of tender, without there being any restriction being imposed that they will not be considered for sub-ranking and the other condition of making it readily available by submitting NOC within 90 days, is nearly same with respect to those who participates with booking slip. Thus, the respondent authorities by laying down such arbitrary condition is not only restricting the small transporter like petitioner but also discriminating the petitioner with those other transporters with whom the TTs being offered are not readily available as on the date of tender. Such discrepancy has been taken care of by the other Oil Marketing companies like IOCL and BPCL wherein, the IOCL under clause 5 of the General Terms and Condition provides that Tenderers will not be allowed to offer such TTS in the said tender, which are already under contract with HPCL/BPCL. In case tenderer wishes to offer such (TTS), the bids submitted should accompany with a written "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) issued by the concerned Oil Company. Similarly, the BPCL under clause 34-part B of Tender Terms & Conditions provides that No Objection Certificate (NOC) from OMCs for Tank lorry not running under OMC regular contract would be submitted by tenderers at the time of the application. The petitioner has participated in the instant tender under MSE-ST category by submitting online bid on 27.07.2023. The petitioner had also preferred a representation submitted on 08.08.2023 to the respondent authorities pointing out aforesaid discrepancies, anomalies, illegalities and the arbitrary conditions prescribed in the NIT with the hope and trust that he will not be discriminated on the basis of such arbitrary and discriminatory conditions. Mr. Dadariya lastly submits that in light of the above submissions, this petition deserves to be allowed. 19. Per contra, Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the respondent is a Government of India Enterprise and a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 (now 2013 Act), which is engaged in the business of refining, distributing and marketing of Petroleum products through a network of dealerships/ distributorships throughout the country. The petitioner is under the direct control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India.. The respondent-Corporation is required to issue tender for transportation of the products so that the Retail Outlets therein after referred to as RO) and other direct customers can receive the same for their sale and consumption. As a matter of policy, the answering respondents initially issues Expression of Interest (EoI) to the dealers of ROs, who wish to transport the products through their own TTs. They are termed as Dealer cum Transporter (for short, 'DCT). As a matter of policy, the answering respondents initially issues Expression of Interest (EoI) to the dealers of ROs, who wish to transport the products through their own TTs. They are termed as Dealer cum Transporter (for short, 'DCT). Around 260 numbers of TT's have been contracted from DCT, which has also have been mentioned at page No.3 of NIT. After receiving the TT's from DCT, the answering respondents have decided to float tender for transportation of fuel based on the requirement for total period of five years which is mentioned at page No.4 of NIT. The petitioner had also participated in the previous tender floated in the year 2018 and was successful in obtaining 6 TTs under ST Category and out of which he inducted only 2 TTs with the answering respondents and failed to provide remaining 4 TTs till date. The 2 TTs bearing Registration No CG-04 MI-8062 and CG-04 ML-8061 have received last loads on 05.07 2022 and 05.10.2022 respectively. Since then, the TTs have not reported to the depot despite letters issued by the answering respondents, which shows how serious the petitioner is with regard to his business. The respondent-Corporation has issued the current NIT and all the terms and conditions are perfectly valid and does not cause any prejudice to any person as alleged by the petitioner. The respondents being an OMC has right to come-up with own terms and conditions, which may be different to other OMC like IOCL and BPCL Just because other OMC's have taken up particular view with regard to prior obtaining of NOC from the OMC where the TT is already inducted, the same not necessary be followed by the answering respondents as their chosen to get the NOC by the transporter at the time of induction, if the transporter is selected. The respondent-Corporation is supposed to supply the petroleum products in a seamless manner and for that purposes the tender has been floated and any delay will cause impediment in the distribution system. The petitioner has challenged the NIT on the premise that he may not be able to succeed just because the ST carry forward quota has been removed. The said contention is not proper as the same has been allotted to DCT ST category and no prejudice has been caused to the ST category. The petitioner has challenged the NIT on the premise that he may not be able to succeed just because the ST carry forward quota has been removed. The said contention is not proper as the same has been allotted to DCT ST category and no prejudice has been caused to the ST category. Other grounds that the monopoly has been created in favour of big transporters is also not valid as sub ranking method has to be evolved for proper selection as the process of price bid is by way of reverse auction and mostly all transporters are L-1. As per the NIT, the maximum number of TTs to be allotted to one transporter is five in number. The petitioner has participated with the booking slip of 5 number of TTs as per the petition. The tender provides a transporter belonging to ST/SC Category can participate only with booking slip also. The tender was floated on 26.06.2023 and the last date for submission of NIT was 20.07.2023, which was extended up to 28.07.2023. By way corrigendum the last date was again extended till 28.08.2023 and again was extended upto 28.09.2023. The requirement of TTs for the initial three years is 105 TTs of various capacities and further TTs can be inducted as on need up to 35 TTs. For the fourth and fifth year, the requirement has been shown as 35 TTs. The period of contract was to begin w.e.f. 01.10.2023 up to 30.09.2028, but the same has been modified w.e.f. 01.04.2024 up to 31.03.2029 as the current transportation period which was to come to an end on 30.09.2023 has been extended by six months ie. 31.03.2024 The tender which was floated in the year 2018, there was short fall in the SC and ST category of 28 and 11 TTs respectively and as per the policy, the same was carried forward in the instant tender as mentioned in page No.4 of NIT. During the selection in DCT Category, the answering respondents could select 7 SC transporters and 16 ST Category transporters and that is the why the corrigendum dated 21.07.2023 was issued, by which 7 TTs have been reduced from the carry forward 28 TTs under SC Category and 11 TTs have been omitted which has been explained by way of a chart in paragraph 10 of the return. Further, the pre-bid meeting was conducted to facilitate the transporters with regard to some queries. The document (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner to show that the answering respondents are not clarifying the queries raised by transporters is not correct as the particular query is already explained by way of a chart at page 14 of 149 of NIT. The NIT provides the relaxation to the SC and ST bidders to participate in the tender with the booking slip with a condition of getting the physical position of vehicle within 90 days from the date of issue of LoA. There is a further restriction that the TT offered with the booking slip will not be considered for sub ranking. The said condition is imposed as those bidders under SC/ST category will get priority, who are having physical possession of vehicles and only if there is no bidder under the said category then the bidders with booking slip will get opportunity. The age of TT's has been prescribed as not exceeding 5 years for Mumbai location, 7 years for NCR reason and 13 years for other location as on due date/extended due date of tender. The said conditions are based on the RTO norms prevailing in the particular regions. The petitioner, who had participated in the last tender and after getting 6 TTs has inducted only 2 TTs and that too, have not reported since 2022. It seems the petition has been filed at the behest of other transporters, who doesn't want to come forward. The petitioner is relying on the NIT floated by BPCL and IOCL, which provides for prior NOC of TTs which are inducted in OMC, if the said TT is also included by the bidder in his bid. The respondents being an independent OMC have chosen to permit a bidder to participate with a TT which is already inducted with other OMC, but with a condition that the transporter will have to produce NOC when he gets selected otherwise his entire tender will be cancelled. The transporter participates with his own risk and the petitioner cannot claim particular conditions to be imposed as per his wishes. The answering respondents have evolved a mechanism of sub ranking in case the TTs offered are more than the requirement. The transporter participates with his own risk and the petitioner cannot claim particular conditions to be imposed as per his wishes. The answering respondents have evolved a mechanism of sub ranking in case the TTs offered are more than the requirement. The petitioner cannot claim parity of conditions as imposed by other OMCs as the answering respondents have right to impose terms and conditions suitable to them. The respondents have issued this NIT with the terms and conditions which are perfectly legal and suits their requirement and the same cannot be looked into by this Hon'ble Court as the same is a policy matter for any OMC The petition lacks merit and needs to be dismissed with cost. 20. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents and submits that the respondents have filed its reply giving evasive reply and on various issues the reply is silent. The return of the respondents is either silent or evasive on various issues: firstly, on the issue regarding the basis of prescribing age of TTs at Mumbai Location and other locations; secondly, on the arbitrary criteria being adopted for not considering the bidders like the petitioner for sub-ranking, who has participated on the booking slip on the ground of not having physical possession of the TTs, whereas, on the other hand the other big transporters who have engaged their TT's in other OMC and are not having actual physical possession of the TT's will be considered for sub-ranking; thirdly, neither any explanation has been offered nor any clause has been referred as to how the carry forward open quota for the transporters can be ulitized for allotment to the Dealer Cum Transporter, fourthly, no explanation for fixing arbitrary criteria prescribed in sub-ranking deviating from the criteria prescribed earlier, has been given, substantiating the same with the cogent material and reason for the same. As such it has become necessary to file the instant rejoinder. As per the respondents own saying that (DCT) are allotted TTs by altogether following separate procedure by issuing EoI to dealers of ROs, as such, the said stand of the respondents is misconceived and supports the case of the petitioner that CFQ cannot be deleted, as the same cannot be adjusted as against the DCT quota. As per the respondents own saying that (DCT) are allotted TTs by altogether following separate procedure by issuing EoI to dealers of ROs, as such, the said stand of the respondents is misconceived and supports the case of the petitioner that CFQ cannot be deleted, as the same cannot be adjusted as against the DCT quota. Further, after stating in the NIT that 260 TTs are separately contracted from DCT and thereafter NIT has been floated including ST CFQ. No explanation or material is shown as to whether these 260 TTs to DCT category includes or excludes those 11 ST carry forward quota. With regard to the allegations made against the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation, Mr. Dadariya submits that the situation as stated by the respondents had arisen and is completely attributable to the respondents because of delay in inducting the TTs offered and finalizing the tender which has resulted in cost overturn and also because of outbreak of Covid Pandemic because of which the business of the petitioner has suffered to great extent resulting in acute financial crunch. Further, in mid term of the earlier tender, the respondent HPCL had ordered to convert all top loading TT's to bottom loading TT's which required petitioner to incur additional expenses of approximately Rs.8 Lakhs per TT to convert them. Due to acute financial crunch, the petitioner could not convert his top loading TTs to bottom loading TTs and for this very reason the TTs were not reported after 2022. The issues pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the earlier tender cannot be agitated or relied and in any way supports the unreasonable stand of the respondents in the instant NIT. Though the respondents can come up with own terms and conditions but at the same time it should not be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, else the same will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Obtaining prior NOC has its own purpose that only those TTs are offered which are readily available. Even otherwise, when physical possession is required at the time of induction then in such situation the petitioner cannot be discriminated by imposing a restriction that he will not be considered for sub-ranking. Obtaining prior NOC has its own purpose that only those TTs are offered which are readily available. Even otherwise, when physical possession is required at the time of induction then in such situation the petitioner cannot be discriminated by imposing a restriction that he will not be considered for sub-ranking. The carry forward quota of the earlier tender cannot be utilized or exhausted by allotting the same to the DCT-ST category as separate procedure and manner has been prescribed by issuing expression of interest to the DCT for allotment. The conditions have been prescribed in such a manner that the monopoly has been created in favour of big transporters as sub-ranking has been permitted to such transporters who are not having physical possession of vehicle for the same being attached in other OMC's, on the other hand restriction has been imposed that the bidders like petitioner who had participated on booking slip will not be considered for sub ranking. Restriction on bidders for not being considered in sub-ranking has been imposed in view of the fact that they are not having physical possession of the TTs but on the contrary the other big transporters whose TTs are attached with other OMC's and are not readily available, can not only offer those TTs in the present NIT to artificially show a bigger fleet size but also will be considered for sub-ranking and will be given preference. Age of the TT's is given second last priority in sub ranking, thereby, compromising the safety on road. Thus, such arbitrary condition discriminates the petitioner with those other bidders. 21.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 22. The initial NIT was issued on 26.06.2023 and on 18.07.2023, the impugned corrigendum was issued by which the last date of submission of bids was extended till 28.07.2023. This petition came to be filed on 13.08.2023 and this petition was listed on 24.08.2023 on which date, on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was adjourned to 28.08.2023 and the matter was again adjourned on the said date to 20.09.2023. As the parties had exchanged their pleadings, the matter was directed to be listed today and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 23. As the parties had exchanged their pleadings, the matter was directed to be listed today and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 23. The petitioner is challenging the NIT on the ground that various terms and conditions mentioned therein are arbitrary, unreasonable and have been tailor made to give preferential treatment to big firms and to oust the small firms like that of the petitioner. The other ground is that by issuance of the corrigendum (Annexure P/2), the entire CFQ for the ST bidders/participants has been completely omitted. The petitioner is also one of the aspiring bidder in the NIT floated by the respondent-Corporation. The respondent-Corporation being a Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, has every right to lay down terms and conditions in any NIT in order to safeguard its own interests. 24. From perusal of the return filed by the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner had also participated in the previous tender floated in the year 2018 and was successful in obtaining 6 TTs under ST category and out of which he inducted only 2 TTs with the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner failed to provide remaining 4 TTs till date. The 2 TTs bearing Registration No CG-04 MI-8062 and CG-04 ML-8061 have received last loads on 05.07 2022 and 05.10.2022 respectively. Since then, the TTs have not reported to the depot despite letters issued by the answering respondents, which shows how serious the petitioner is with regard to his business. The respondent-Corporation has issued the current NIT and all the terms and conditions are perfectly valid and does not cause any prejudice to any person as alleged by the petitioner. The respondents being an OMC, has right to come-up with own terms and conditions, which may be different to other OMC like IOCL and BPCL. Even if the other OMCs have adopted a particular policy with regard to prior obtaining of NOC from the OMC where the TT is already inducted, the same is not necessary to be followed/adopted by the respondent-Corporation as it has chosen to get the NOC from the transporter at the time of induction, if the transporter is selected. 25. The petitioner has challenged the NIT on the premise that he may not be able to succeed just because the ST carry forward quota has been removed. 25. The petitioner has challenged the NIT on the premise that he may not be able to succeed just because the ST carry forward quota has been removed. The said contention is not proper as the same has been allotted to DCT ST category and no prejudice has been caused to the ST category. The ground with regard to monopoly being created in favour of the big transporters is also not substantiated as sub ranking method has to be evolved for proper selection as the process of price bid is by way of reverse auction and mostly all transporters are L-1. As per the NIT, the maximum number of TTs to be allotted to one transporter is five in number. The petitioner has participated with the booking slip of 5 number of of TTs as per the petition. The tender provides a transporter belonging to ST/SC category can participate only with booking slip also. The tender was floated on 26.06.2023 and the last date for submission of NIT was 20.07.2023, which was extended up to 28.07.2023. By way corrigendum the last date was again extended till 28.08.2023 and again was extended upto 28.09.2023. The requirement of TTs for the initial three years is 105 TTs of various capacities and further TTs can be inducted as on need up to 35 TTs. For the fourth and fifth year, the requirement has been shown as 35 TTs. The period of contract was to begin w.e.f. 01.10.2023 up to 30.09.2028, but the same has been modified w.e.f. 01.04.2024 up to 31.03.2029 as the current transportation period which was to come to an end on 30.09.2023 has been extended by six months ie. 31.03.2024 The tender which was floated in the year 2018, there was short fall in the SC and ST category of 28 and 11 TTs respectively and as per the policy, the same was carried forward in the instant tender as mentioned in page No.4 of NIT. 26. As per the return, dDuring the selection in DCT category, the respondent-Corporation could select 7 SC transporters and 16 ST Category transporters and that is why the corrigendum dated 21.07.2023 was issued, by which 7 TTs have been reduced from the carry forward 28 TTs under SC Category and 11 TTs have been omitted which has been explained by way of a chart in paragraph 10 of the return. Further, the pre-bid meeting was conducted to facilitate the transporters with regard to some queries. The contention of the petitioner that the answering respondents are not clarifying the queries raised by transporters is not correct as query is already explained by way of a chart at page 14 of 149 of NIT. The NIT also provides a relaxation to the SC and ST bidders to participate in the tender with the booking slip with a condition of getting the physical position of vehicle within 90 days from the date of issue of LoA. There is a further restriction that the TT offered with the booking slip will not be considered for sub-ranking. The said condition is imposed as those bidders under SC/ST category will get priority, who are having physical possession of vehicles and only if there is no bidder under the said category then the bidders with booking slip will get opportunity. The age of TT's has been prescribed differently for different areas on the basis of the relevant RTO norms prevailing in the particular regions. 27. From the above, it is evident that none of the conditions prescribed by the respondent-Corporation is either illegal, arbitrary or irrational. The intending bidder cannot direct the respondent-Corporation to impose terms and conditions which may suit him. 28. From perusal of the impugned corrigendum, it is evident that 8 TT requirement under the ST category is still available for the intending tenderer of the ST category. Even otherwise, in matters relating to tender/contract, there is very limited scope for this Court to interfere. We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reliance Telecom Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another { (2017) 4 SCC 269 }. After an exhaustive survey of case laws, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held as follows : “42. In Global Energy Ltd. v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2005) 4 SCC 435 ], this Court reiterated the principles that: (SCC p. 441, para 10) “10. … the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and the courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are in the realm of contract unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice.” xxx xxx xxx 44. … the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and the courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are in the realm of contract unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice.” xxx xxx xxx 44. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216 ], the Court, after referring to Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 ] and Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Sendhwa, (2017) 4 SCC 269 , expressed the view that (at SCC p. 229, para 23) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play and actions are amenable to judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose and if the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities. It further observed that fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers and greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract. The Court also laid emphasis on public interest and the prudence in applying the principle of restraint where the action is fair and reasonable and does not smack of mala fides. It was also emphasised that the courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government simply because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. xxx xxx xxx “46. In Census Commr. It was also emphasised that the courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government simply because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. xxx xxx xxx “46. In Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, after noting several decisions, held that (SCC p. 809, para 33) it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved and the courts can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded on ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. It further observed that in certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions but the court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion.” 29. The Supreme Court, in M/s. N.G. Projects Ltd. v. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 1846/2022, decided on 21.03.2022} observed 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 malafide 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. 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.” 30. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred hereinabove, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court and as such, this petition is dismissed.