JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Manan Bhatt waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr.Shrikar Bhatt waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3, 4,9 and 12. 2. This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India with prayers as under:- “A) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the selection of Respondents NO.2 to 13 as successful bidders under tender no.22000869-HD-10157 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to re-do the selection of bidders strictly in accordance with the tender conditions and the declare the petitioners as successful bidders; A1) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of or in the nature of the mandamus commanding Respondent No.1 to give a preference to newer trucks over older trucks and in the event that tender no.22000869-HD-10157 issued by Respondent No.1 is interpreted to be not giving preference to newer trucks over older trucks, be pleased to quash and set aside the said tender to the said extent;” 2.1 The case pertains to a Tender floated by the Respondent- corporation for allotment of Trucks of various capacity to be supplied for a specific time period for the purpose of maintaining uninterpreted supply of Gas cylinders from the respondent- Corporation to various destination for distribution. 3. Both sides request to take up the final hearing, as the Tender has already been allotted and operational through successful bidder. All the respondents are served and are represented by respective Advocates except for few, who, though served, have not appeared. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has raised his main contention regarding allotment for Trucks in the reserved category for the M.S.M.E. 4.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued that the Tender Document specifically provided for Procurement Preference to M.S.E. Tenderer and for that purpose, the Policy under MSE Order 2012 providing guidelines to be followed. 4.2 It is argued that 25% of the total trucks were to be inducted from registered MSE and within allocated 25%, also there would be reservation for SC/ST and women category. According to learned Advocate, the respondents have not acted in accordance with this policy. 4.2 It is argued that 25% of the total trucks were to be inducted from registered MSE and within allocated 25%, also there would be reservation for SC/ST and women category. According to learned Advocate, the respondents have not acted in accordance with this policy. 4.3 It is submitted that all the petitioners were MSE and the bids of all the petitioners was L1 and therefore, in MSE category, all the petitioners ought to have been allocated truck in proportion to the numbers of Trucks offered by the petitioners instead the respondents in MSE category allotted the trucks only to two MSE bidders. Learned Advocate for this purpose drew attention to the Affidavit in reply for specific allocation of Trucks made to successful Bidder. 4.4 Learned Advocate has also argued that the entire Tender process was required to be scrapped for several irregularities committed and the respondents acting against the very Tender Document. It is pleaded that the respondents have given preference to older trucks over the Newer Trucks. It is submitted that the tender provided for capping the maximum allocation of Trucks to 15 trucks and therefore, the bidder offering above 15 Trucks is of no consequence rather the respondents have favoured the bidder with lower number of offered trucks. 4.5 In the pleadings, though other grounds like pointing out individual disqualification of some of the qualified respondents are raised, but are not argued and in any case, these are the factual aspects, which may need leading of evidence. 4.6 Learned Advocate has argued that actions of the respondent-Corporation in disregarding petitioners as MSE is directly against the object for which the MSME Act and the Procurement Policy 2012 was passed. Therefore, against the spirit of Directive Principle of State Policy. 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the respondent- Corporation has framed the tender to suit its requirement and followed the tender procedure in transparent manner. It is submitted that the present petition is in the nature of dictating the terms of the tender document, so as to suit petitioners requirement. The petitioners have not challenged the Tender process on the ground of arbitrariness, malafide or the Tender conditions being tailor made. 5.1 With regards to contentions regarding capping of Trucks, it is submitted that the Tender document “Price Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation of trucks “Clause No 14. The petitioners have not challenged the Tender process on the ground of arbitrariness, malafide or the Tender conditions being tailor made. 5.1 With regards to contentions regarding capping of Trucks, it is submitted that the Tender document “Price Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation of trucks “Clause No 14. Capping on Truck allotment to bidders’, it is clearly mentioned that there is no limit with respect to number of trucks being offered by bidder. However, it is mentioned that if after opening of price bids it is found that number of trucks being offered at a particular rate is more than the number required, then the maximum no of trucks allotted to a bidder will be capped at 15 trucks. Respondent no. 1 has followed the tender conditions scrupulously. 5.2 With regard to the contention of preference to older Trucks, it is submitted that as per ranking criteria of tender, age as raking criteria is below number of owned trucks offered by bidder. However, there is max age limit of vehicle specified in tender in Special Terms and Conditions Clause no.4 age of the trucks should not exceed 14 years as on the due date for submission of the tender from the original date manufacturing as per RC book of truck. Age of the trucks should also comply with local Road Transport Authority guidelines as applicable for law of lend. Tender also calls for installation of anti-lock braking system in vehicle, spark arrestor approved by PESO, all electric wiring to be armored end en exhaustive transport discipline guideline with transporter to be done. There is an exhaustive checklist before truck induction to be checked. 5.3 On facts justifying the actions of the respondent- Corporation, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that HPCL has selected Respondents Nos. 2,4 and 10 as successful bidders despite the fact that the trucks Offered by them are already serving with other Oil Marketing Companies. It is submitted that Respondent Nos.2 and 4, M/s Tanwar Handling works and M/s Vikas Logistics had submitted their bid declaring that none of his offered trucks are under contract with any IOC/BPC/HPC other plant for a period beyond commencement date of contract against this tender (as per Clause No 3a of this tender). Trucks of Respondent no. 2 i.e. M/s Tanwar Handling were under contract with M/s HPCL at same location for which tender has been floated which is acceptable as per tender. Trucks of Respondent no. 2 i.e. M/s Tanwar Handling were under contract with M/s HPCL at same location for which tender has been floated which is acceptable as per tender. The proposed date of commencement of contract was 01 July 2023. As per their declaration, none of the trucks offered by them was under contract with any other oil Market Company for period beyond 01 July 2023, Hence, there Is no violation of tender terms and conditions. I further state that Respondent no 10, M/s Yash Logistics had submitted unconditional NOC from M/s IOCL as per HPCL format In tender, hence their bid Is technically qualified. 5.4 It is submitted that respondent no. 2 is M/s Tanwar handling works and he did not submit his bid with RC book of truck mentioning “closed”, Be that as it may, the respondent No 10, M/s Jyoti Lorry Services (respondent No.5), who has submitted truck papers with RC book mentioning body type as closed (container). A clarification in this regard was sought from respondent No.5-M/s.Jyothi lorry Services and his response was found satisfactory, hence his bid was accepted and that nowhere in RC book submitted by bidder in question, the word “container” has been mentioned which is prohibited for truck qualification. It is only mentioned as “closed” body type in RC book. Also the tender clause too does not debar “closed” body type in the RC book. In fact, as per special terms and conditions mentioned in page 20 of tender it is mentioned “Bidders are strictly advised to quote for Trucks suitable for LPG cylinder Transportation and authenticity the document shall rest solely with the bidders. RC books specifying ‘tanker’, ‘tank truck’, ‘bus’, ‘container, ‘trailer’ and ‘articulated vehicle’ will not be accepted. Corporation’s decision in this respect will be final and binding on all bidders." The vendor has provided explanation with reference to the query clarifying that trucks offered by him are suitable for LPG cylinder transportation. 5.5 It is submitted that respondent No. 13, M/s Garuda Transport Company has been selected as lowest bidder despite the fact that his bid was second lowest and he was permitted to reduce his price to L1. 5.5 It is submitted that respondent No. 13, M/s Garuda Transport Company has been selected as lowest bidder despite the fact that his bid was second lowest and he was permitted to reduce his price to L1. It is necessary to mention that M/s Garuda Transport belongs to SC category and its ranking and allocation is done separately since there is 15% reservation for SC category as per Tender Notice Clause no5, Reservation and Purchase Preference. Also as per the Reverse Auction-Terms and conditions and Procedure as per clause No.19. HPCL reserves the right to further rationalize the prices with lowest bidder for reducing the price at any time before ordering. 5.6 It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner on the basis of Procurement Policy 2012 especially by invoking Clause-6 of the said policy, it is fallacious as for relying upon the proviso to the Clause-6(2), it is necessary that requirement of Clause-6(1) arises, which in the present case does not arise as all the bidders are L1. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in case of Navin Kumar Chopda v/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and others reported in 2021:CGHC:8032-DB in support of his argument on Clause-6(2) proviso. 5.7 Learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Resoursys Telecom and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 1103 , to contend that scope of judicial review is limited in contract and Tender matter. 5.8 It is argued that the Tender document itself provides for an inbuilt mechanism for redressal of any grievance. The petitioners have never resorted to such option and the decision of the respondent-Corporation is final and binding. 5.9 Lastly, it is argued that as on out of 108 trucks for which Letter of Allotment has been issued, document verification and induction process is completed for 90 trucks. That against the requirement of 90 trucks, M/s HPCL received qualified technical bids with 253 trucks. All, except one, were at same rate. Allocation of trucks was done after ranking as per ranking criteria of tender. 6. That against the requirement of 90 trucks, M/s HPCL received qualified technical bids with 253 trucks. All, except one, were at same rate. Allocation of trucks was done after ranking as per ranking criteria of tender. 6. In rejoinder, it is argued that the respondents have wrongly interpreted Clause-6 and proviso to Clause-2 as L1+15 does include L1 and all the petitioners are L1 and therefore, there has to be distribution of Trucks to all the eligible bidders including the petitioners. 6.1 He has also argued that the grievance cell is not an efficacious remedy as grievance cell may not apply the Policy for Orer 2012. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the Respondent no. 1 has carried out tendering and contract award for packed transportation contract 22000869-HD-1015. The tender was a public tender and it was freely available (accessible to public at large) online in E-proc- portal of the Respondent no. 1. 7.1 The tender was published on 04 March 2023 with due date of 27 March 2023. During this time, all prospective bidders including the petitioners were having option to post their query online and response for the same was provided by the Respondent no. 1. 21 queries were posted online by various bidders which was replied. As per the Tender Documents, a pre-bid meeting was also conducted at HPCL Hazira Plant on 13 March 2023 at 11:00 to 11:50 HRS for which advance intimation vide mail was provided on 11th March 2023. No grievance was raised by the petitioners regarding the Selection process. The technical evaluation of all bids was commenced and completed and submitted for further approval on 13th May 2023. The bidders whose bid was rejected were also informed/communicated through online E-proc portal of M/s HPCL and finally the process of technical evaluation was completed on 29 May 2023. After the technical evaluation Priced bids of all qualified bids were opened and a Reverse Auction was done on 02 June 2023, online after giving an advance notice of same to all qualified bidders through email. After the Reverse Auction was completed, the process of ranking of trucks, qualified bidder wise, was done and provisional letters of acceptance for award of contract with number of trucks allocated to each successful bidder was done on 26 June and onwards. After the Reverse Auction was completed, the process of ranking of trucks, qualified bidder wise, was done and provisional letters of acceptance for award of contract with number of trucks allocated to each successful bidder was done on 26 June and onwards. Subsequently verification of trucks and original documents was done and trucks are being inducted in HPCL fleet in August, 2023. 8. The Court may refer to and rely upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Caretel Infotech Ltd. v/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 3327 . The Apex Court explained the scope of Article-226 of the Constitution of India in Para-36, which reads as under: “36. We consider it appropriate to make certain observations in the context of the nature of dispute which is before us. Normally parties would be governed by their contracts and the tender terms, and really no writ would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of Government and Public Sector Enterprises venturing into economic activities, this Court found it appropriate to build in certain checks and balances of fairness in procedure. It is this approach which has given rise to scrutiny of tenders in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It, however, appears that the window has been opened too wide as almost every small or big tender is now sought to be challenged in writ proceedings almost as a matter of routine. This in turn, affects the efficacy of commercial activities of the public sectors, which may be in competition with the private sector. This could hardly have been the objective in mind. An unnecessary, close scrutiny of minute details, contrary to the view of the tendering authority, makes awarding of contracts by Government and Public Sectors a cumbersome exercise, with long drawn out litigation at the threshold. The private sector is competing often in the same field. Promptness and efficiency levels in private contracts, thus, often tend to make the tenders of the public sector a non-competitive exercise. This works to a great disadvantage to the Government and the Public Sector.” 8.1 The Apex Court after citing 3 previous decisions of the Apex Court and observed in Para-42 as under: “42. Promptness and efficiency levels in private contracts, thus, often tend to make the tenders of the public sector a non-competitive exercise. This works to a great disadvantage to the Government and the Public Sector.” 8.1 The Apex Court after citing 3 previous decisions of the Apex Court and observed in Para-42 as under: “42. We have considered it appropriate to, once again, emphasise the aforesaid aspects, especially in the context of endeavours of courts to give their own interpretation to contracts, more specifically tender terms, at the behest of a third party competing for the tender, rather than what is propounded by the party framing the tender. The object cannot be that in every contract, where some parties would lose out, they should get the opportunity to somehow pick holes, to disqualify the successful parties, on grounds on which even the party floating the tender finds no merit.” 8.2 In the decision of the Apex Court in case of Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Resoursys Telecom and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court on the understanding and interpreting the Tender document the author of the Tender is given precedence leaving a little scope for the High Court to interpret the Tender Document. In Para-16, the Apex Court held as under:- “Interpretation of Tender Document: Relevant Principles 16. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters, and particularly in relation to the process of interpretation of tender document, has been the subject matter of discussion in various decisions of this Court. We need not multiply the authorities on the subject, as suffice it would be refer to the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Galaxy Transport Agency (supra) wherein, among others, the said decision in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra) has also been considered; and this Court has disapproved the interference by the High Court in the interpretation by the tender inviting authority of the eligibility term relating to the category of vehicles required to be held by the bidders, in the tender floated for supply of vehicles for the carriage of troops and equipment. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and stated the legal principles as follows: - “14. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and stated the legal principles as follows: - “14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 , this Court held: “15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” (page 825) (emphasis supplied) 15. In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha 2020 SCC OnLine SC 335, under the heading “Deference to authority's interpretation”, this Court stated:- “51. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another fundamental problem. It is obvious that Respondent No. 1 seeks to only enforce terms of the NIT. Inherent in such exercise is interpretation of contractual terms. However, it must be noted that judicial interpretation of contracts in the sphere of commerce stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting statutes. 52. In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and India have laid recourse to Clauses of the NIT, whether it be to justify condonation of delay of Respondent No.6 in submitting performance bank guarantees or their decision to resume auction on grounds of technical failure. BCCL having authored these documents, is better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them. (Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 ) 53. The High Court ought to have deferred to this understanding, unless it was patently perverse or mala fide. BCCL having authored these documents, is better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them. (Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 ) 53. The High Court ought to have deferred to this understanding, unless it was patently perverse or mala fide. Given how BCCL's interpretation of these clauses was plausible and not absurd, solely differences in opinion of contractual interpretation ought not to have been grounds for the High Court to come to a finding that the appellant committed illegality.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Further, in the recent judgment in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133, this Court held as follows: “20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.” 9. With the aforesaid principles expressed by the Apex Court, the Court may examine the main contention of the petitioners that the petitioners being MSE, they are entitled to allocations of Trucks as per the Policy of 2012. The dispute revolves around allocation of Trucks with carrying capacity of 342 cylinders, the break-up being as under:- Total Estimated truck requirement from transporters for entire sector schedule: Sr. No. Truck with Cyl. Capacity 1st 3 Years Addl. 4th Year Addl. 5th Year 1 342 Cyl. 70 5 5 9.1 The reservation and preference category is as under: Reservation & Purchase Preference Category wise truck requirement: Category Percentage CA. 342 Cyuls (Nos.) Cap. 504 Cyls. (Nos.) Ca. 600 Cyls. (Nos.) SC 15%. No. Truck with Cyl. Capacity 1st 3 Years Addl. 4th Year Addl. 5th Year 1 342 Cyl. 70 5 5 9.1 The reservation and preference category is as under: Reservation & Purchase Preference Category wise truck requirement: Category Percentage CA. 342 Cyuls (Nos.) Cap. 504 Cyls. (Nos.) Ca. 600 Cyls. (Nos.) SC 15%. 11 6 0 SC carry forward 11 9 ST 7.50% 5 3 0 ST Carry forward 9 3 MSE-General 18.00% 13 8 1 MSE-SC/ST 4.00% 3 2 0 MSE-Women 3.00% 2 1 0 Total MSE (including MSE- SC/ST, MSE Women) 25.00% 18 11 1 10. When the petition was filed, the original prayer was to quash the selection of successful bidders and the re-do the selection of the bidders. This prayer was later amended seeking direction to the respondents to give preference to the Newer Trucks over the older trucks allegedly offered by the respective bidders. It appears that on account of receiving lesser offers in the category of Higher Capacity Trucks, the offered quantity in this particular trucks were increased from 70 to 90 trucks. 11. The issue raised is in the category of Trucks allocation reserved for MSE category and within MSE category also reservation for SC/ST and women. 12. The 25% of total trucks allocation was for MSE category as per the table in previous paras, where the contract awarded is of 5 years. The Sub-categorisation is as under: Sub-categorisation of MSE 25% Sr.No. Name of Category Percentage Nos. as per percentage Actual allocation as per bids received 1 MSE-SC/ST 4.00% 3.6 4 2 MSE WOMAN 3.00% 2.7 3 3 Mse gen 18.00% 16.2 16 Total-MSE 25.00% 22.5 23 12.1 The allocations of trucks in MSE category and as per Sub-categorisation is as under:- Ranking and Allocation 342 Cylinder Capacity Trucks Sr. No Bidder Name Categor y Total Tts offere d and qualifi ed Average age of trucks Ran k Sub Rank TTs allotted Remarks 1. Vikas Logistics (resp. No.4) MSE Woman 35 - L1 L1 15 MSE- Women Quota=3, MSE-Gen quota=12 2. H.K.Goods Carrier (resp. No.3) General 30 - L1 L2 15 Gen-15 3. Jothi Lorry Service (resp. No.5) MSE Woman 24 - L1 L3 15 Gen-11, MSE-GEN quota=4 4. Tanwar Handling Works (resp. No.2) General 22 - L1 L4 15 Gen-15 5. Mercurial Logistics and Consultanc y Private Limited (resp. No.12) General 18 - L1 L5 11 Gen-11 6. H.K.Goods Carrier (resp. No.3) General 30 - L1 L2 15 Gen-15 3. Jothi Lorry Service (resp. No.5) MSE Woman 24 - L1 L3 15 Gen-11, MSE-GEN quota=4 4. Tanwar Handling Works (resp. No.2) General 22 - L1 L4 15 Gen-15 5. Mercurial Logistics and Consultanc y Private Limited (resp. No.12) General 18 - L1 L5 11 Gen-11 6. Ashirwad Transport General 15 298 L1 L6 - - 7. Patil Goods Transport (petitioner No.1) MSE General 15 377 L1 L7 - - 8. Vedant Roadlines Private Limited (petitioner No.5) General 14 26 L1 L8 - - 9. Pawan Enterprises MSE Woman 14 531.4 L1 L9 - - 10 Agarwal Agency MSE General 8 - L1 L10 - - 11. Dak & Co. (petitioner No.4) MSE General 7 603.57 L1 L11 - - 12. Viraf T. Jangalwala General 7 1385 L1 L12 - - 13. A B Enterprises (petitioner No.2) MSE General 5 26 L1 L13 - - 14. A.K.Singh and Co. (petitioner No.6) MSE General 5 26 L1 L13 - - 15. J B Roadlines General 5 26 L1 L13 - - 16. Somnath Developers MSE General 5 1515 L1 L13 - - 17. Yash Logistics (resp. No.10) MSE SC 4 - L1 L14 4 MSE-SC/ ST quota=4 18. Girja Engineerin g Company MSE Woman 3 - L1 L15 - - 19. A P Enterprise (petitioner No.3) MSE General 2 - L1 L16 - - 22. Rakesh Enterprise (resp. No.6) MSE SC 1 207 L1 L17 1 SC quota=1 20. Ananda Enterprises (resp. No.11) MSE SC 1 269 L1 L18 1 SC quota=1 21. Sanskruti Enterprises (resp. No.7) MSE SC 1 269 L1 L19 1 SC quota=1 23 Garuda Transport_ 306_HZ (resp. No.13) SC 8 - L2 L20 8 SC quota=8 24. Sai Sharaddha Road Lines (resp. No.9) MSE SC 2 - L1 - 2 SC quota=2 25. APC Consultant MSE ST 2 - L1 - 2 ST quota=2 12.2 The aforesaid table indicates that the petitioners have not been allocated any truck. 13. The petitioners claim proportionate allocation of trucks as all the petitioners match the L1 and invoke clauses of Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order 2012. Particularly, Clause-6 which reads as under: “6. Price quotation in tenders. 13. The petitioners claim proportionate allocation of trucks as all the petitioners match the L1 and invoke clauses of Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order 2012. Particularly, Clause-6 which reads as under: “6. Price quotation in tenders. % (1) In tender, participating Micro and Small Enterprises quoting price within price band of L1 +15 per cent shall also be allowed to supply a portion of requirement by bringing down their price to L1 price in a situation where L1 price is from someone other than a Micro and Small Enterprise and such Micro and Small Enterprise shall be allowed to supply up to 20 per cent of total tendered value. (2) In case of more than one such Micro and Small Enterprise, the supply shall be shared proportionately (to tendered quantity).” 14. This was argued by connecting it with Clause-14 of the Bid document, which reads as under:- “14. 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 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 15 (FIFTEEN) truck 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 15 trucks overall in all the schedules at such rates where capping is applicable in all schedules for that bidder, a maximum of 15 trucks will be allotted to the bidder and allotment in each schedule will be in proportion to the number of trucks Offered in the respective schedules. iii. in case there is a bidder who has offered more than 15 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 15 trucks are allotted to the bidder. iv. iii. in case there is a bidder who has offered more than 15 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 15 trucks are allotted to the bidder. iv. For capping, trucks will be excluded from allotment in the following order: first attached trucks, then trucks offered under temporary registration, and then owned trucks. 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.” 15. The High Court of Chhattisgarh had an occasion to examine the very clause and the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Navin Kumar Chopda v/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and others (supra) held in Para-20 and 21 as under:- “[20] Coming to the scope of Clause 6 (1) of the Annexure-P/4 Procurement Policy Order, under the Scheme of the Tender, it is possible that the MSEs may not get a placement at L1 because of the probable higher rate quoted by them in view of their overhead expenses and such other aspects. But, in view of the Policy of the Central Government and the object to promote the MSE segment under the Act, 2006 and also Annexure-P/4 Procurement Policy Order framed in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act, 2006, MSEs have to be accommodated to an extent of 20% in the manner as specified therein. It is with the object of promoting the MSEs, that the Government has stipulated that even if the MSE has quoted a higher rate than L1, they have to be considered to the appropriate extent; provided their rate is not beyond 15% than L1. It is with the object of promoting the MSEs, that the Government has stipulated that even if the MSE has quoted a higher rate than L1, they have to be considered to the appropriate extent; provided their rate is not beyond 15% than L1. Under such circumstance, the MSEs within the considerable zone of "L1 rate + 15%" have to be given an opportunity to get the relevant extent of share in the work / service; provided they agree to supply the goods / render the work / service at the rate quoted by the party at L1 level. This is quite evident from the wording given under Clause 6 (1), which refers to the context "in situation where L1 price is from someone other than a Micro and Small Enterprise". There may be chances to have more than one such MSE within the range of "L1 + 15%", having quoted different rates of their own. Under such circumstance, the benefit of 20% earmarked for the MSE segment has to be equitably distributed among 'such MSEs' (i.e. within L1+15% slot), sharing it proportionately as given in sub-clause (2) of Clause 6. [21] It is contended by the Petitioners that all the MSEs at L1 level, who have quoted the same figure at rock bottom rate, are to be treated alike and that giving the benefit only to a few, without sharing the work proportionately, will go against the mandate of Clause 6 (2). The said proposition is difficult to be accepted for the obvious reason that Annexure-P/4 Procurement Policy Order does not say that, whenever more than one MSE participate in the bid proceedings, coming within the reckonable unit of L1 or L1+15%, the work shall be equally shared among them. The very intent of sub-clause (1) of Clause 6 is to bring an 'MSE' who has quoted a higher rate than L1 to the level of L1 for awarding the work to the requisite extent (20%); for ensuring that such extent of work should go to the MSE sector. This by itself shows that, if the price quoted at L1 is by an MSE, consideration of any other MSE from the segment of "L1+15%" may not be necessary; unless there is a vacant slot or deficit to meet the requirement of 20% allocable to the MSE segment.” 16. This by itself shows that, if the price quoted at L1 is by an MSE, consideration of any other MSE from the segment of "L1+15%" may not be necessary; unless there is a vacant slot or deficit to meet the requirement of 20% allocable to the MSE segment.” 16. In the opinion of the Court, the application of clause of the Policy Order 2012 and the capping Clause-14 is completely different. Clause-6 of the order in its entirety is to be seen from the context of the bid offered by the MSE bidder vis-a-vis the bid offered by L1 in general category, therefore, to prevent the elimination of MSE from the bid altogether level play is created to enable the MSE still if his bid is more by 15% of L1 and when L1, there are many MSE bidder in L1+15% category, then the proportionate distribution as per Sub-clause-2, whereas the capping Clause-14 is when one single bidder has offered the number of Trucks at a particular rate is more than the number required then the capping clause will apply. Therefore, the argument of the petitioners that in all the cases, the number of trucks offered by the respondents should be treated as 15 only and then the proportionate distribution as per Clause-6(2) of the Order 2012 cannot be accepted. 17. However, the Court while perusing the affidavit of the respondent-corporation to which attention is drawn by the learned Advocate of the petitioners to the anomaly in allocating trucks in favour of the respondent No.5 “Jothi Lorry Service”. The table of allocation reproduced in Para-12.1 indicates that the respondent No.5 was falling in category of MSE woman. Similarly, for respondent No.4; Vikas Logistics also falling in MSE woman category. 18. Respondent No.4-Vikas Logistics is allotted 15 trucks, 3 in MSE woman quota and 12 in MSE-General. Respondent No.5- Jothi Lorry Service is allotted 15 trucks, 11 in general and 4 in MSE-general. Whereas total trucks reserved for MSE-General- 16. Quota of the MSE General for 16 is filled up by allocation to respondent No.4; Vikas Logistics-12 trucks and respondent No.5- Jothi Lorry Service, 4 trucks. Hence, 11 trucks allotted to respondent No.5-Jothi Lorry Service are from Unreserved General category. Therefore, the anomaly is that how the respondent No.5- Jothi Lorry Service was able to bid both as an MSE – General also in General Open category at the same time. Hence, 11 trucks allotted to respondent No.5-Jothi Lorry Service are from Unreserved General category. Therefore, the anomaly is that how the respondent No.5- Jothi Lorry Service was able to bid both as an MSE – General also in General Open category at the same time. Learned Senior Advocate was unable to explain either on basis of the pleadings or by argument this anomaly. 19. To the aforesaid extent, the Court is of the view that the allocation of Trucks will have to be interfered with. It is true that the allocation has already taken place and the trucks are in operation since 2023, but when illegality is found in allocation, this cannot be continued. Though respondent No.5 is served as per the Report, no one has appeared on their behalf and the respondent- Corporation is also not able to defend their allocation to one bidder in two different categories. 20. The Court is therefore, inclined to interfere to the extent of allocation of 15 trucks to the respondent No.5; Jothi Lorry Service. Such allocation over and above being illegal and not as per the Tender document is also against the spirit of MSE Act, which provide for encouraging the Medium and Small Enterprises (MSE). 21. With regard to the other contentions of the petitioners to examine each and every objections of the petitioners, the Court is inclined to accept the explanation advanced by the respondent- corporation and therefore, does not deem it fit to set aside the entire Tender process, as the allocation of trucks are in conformity of the Tender Document and MSE Policy 2012. 22. For the forgoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The allocation of 15 trucks to the respondent No.5; Jothi Lorry Service is set aside, leaving it upon the respondent-corporation to re-distribute the allocation of the trucks amongst the eligible bidders including the petitioners in strict compliance of the Tender document and the MSE Policy 2012. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.