ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner asserts that Respondent No.2 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is bound by the guidelines issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. He therefore submits that a writ petition is maintainable. 1.1. Petitioner states that he has been engaged in the transport business under the name ‘Kore Manikya Rao Transport’ for several years and regularly provides heavy vehicles (tankers) for transportation of petroleum products for respondent Corporation and other companies. Pursuant to Tender Notification dated 04-06-2025 issued by Respondent No.2, requiring submission of tenders before 31-10-2025. Eligibility criteria at Running Page No.82 of the tender booklet requires a bidder to offer a minimum of five ready-built tank trucks, out of which at least three must be owned; if more than five vehicles are offered, at least 60% must be owned; booking slip TTs are permitted only beyond the minimum requirement and are not considered for sub-ranking. Since petitioner meets these criteria, it is stated, he submitted his bid. 1.2. Petitioner states that after participating in the pre- bid meeting, tenders were opened on 04-06-2025; he bid for 24 vehicles but was awarded only 11, without reasons, though the tender was for transportation of bulk petroleum products from 01-07-2025 or from the date of LOA for a period of five years. He relies on the Star Enterprises judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, asserting that rejection of tender bids must be supported by reasons and in this case, HPCL provided no explanation for rejecting the remaining vehicles. During evaluation, it is stated, Respondent No.2 deviated from tender conditions and favoured Respondent No.6, which had no registered vehicle on the date of tender finalization, as seen from the Registration Certificate dated 03-06-2025 of Smt. Mounika Goda. He claims that only a chassis number was submitted through a Certificate of Verification dated 02-06-2025 issued by Gujarat authorities. 1.3. Referring to Clause 44(1) of Tender Notification, which mandates rejection of trucks if false or incorrect information is found during techno-commercial evaluation, and cancellation of contract with forfeiture of EMD/Security deposit if discovered later, petitioner states that despite this mandatory clause, Respondent No.6’s documents were accepted. It is asserted that transparency is mandatory when the State or its instrumentalities handle commercial matters. It is asserted that transparency is mandatory when the State or its instrumentalities handle commercial matters. He alleges that HPCL acted without transparency and favoured Respondents 5, 6 and 7, even though they did not meet eligibility criteria and allegedly submitted false, fake and fabricated documents including RC books. He therefore, submitted representation dated 11-10-2025, however, HPCL is proceeding to enter into agreements with Respondents 6 and 7. 1.4. It is further stated, legal action is required against the Selection Committee Members Naga Kiran (DGM), Rajeshwar Mushram, Swapna Lakavath, Tirupati Rao and Harilal as there is a possibility of collusion in allotting the tender based on what he describes as false, fake and fabricated RC books. Despite his representations, they have not taken any action and are allegedly tailoring the tender process to suit Respondents 6 and 7. 1.5. Petitioner therefore, requests this Court to direct respondent authorities to cancel the tender notification dated 04.06.2025 and to issue fresh tender notification, duly declaring the inaction of respondent authorities in conducting enqiry with regard to the illegalities and irregularities committed with regard to tender for transportation ofi bulk POL products MS HSD and branded fuels by Road by HPCL, Secunderabad Terminal. 2. On 06.11.2025, learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Venugopal contended that the documents furnished by Respondents 6 t 8 for participating in the tender process are fake; drawing attention to the tabular format in page No. 11-A And 12 of the writ affidavit, he submitted that the vehicle registration date was shown as 03.06.2025 whereas the date of obtaining calibration certificate stated to be issued by Gujarat Government is dated 02.-6.2025 which clearly shows that the document is fake. Considering the said submissions, this Court found a prima facie case in favour of petitioner, hence, permitted the responded – authorities to proceed with the tender process, however, they should not finalize the tender insofar as Respondents 6 to 8 until the next date of hearing. 3. Considering the said submissions, this Court found a prima facie case in favour of petitioner, hence, permitted the responded – authorities to proceed with the tender process, however, they should not finalize the tender insofar as Respondents 6 to 8 until the next date of hearing. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 2 to 5 – HPCL, it is stated, petitioner’s representation dated 11.10.2025 relating to Tender was duly examined by the Corporation and a detailed and reasoned reply was issued on 30.10.2025, informing him that all the Tank Trucks (TTs) mentioned in his representation had already been verified during the TT induction process by comparing their details with records on Government portals; it was further clarified that calibration certificate dated 02.06.2025 issued for TT No. TS08UA8466, as well as documents for TT No. AP39WE0955, had been physically verified at Secunderabad Terminal and cross-checked on PESO and RC databases, confirming their authenticity. Petitioner’s doubts regarding Clause 15 concerning the average age criteria were also clarified by informing that ranking is done schedule-wise strictly in accordance with the tender conditions and no malpractice or irregularity had occurred in the tender process, therefore, his representation dated 11.10.2025 stood closed vide letter dated 30.10.2025. Therefore, the prayer made by petitioner has become infructous and Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 3.1. It is further stated, Corporation operates Secunderabad POL Terminal located at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, which is a major supply point catering to over 60% of MS, HSD and branded fuels in Telangana. The Terminal supplies petroleum products to more than 850 Retail Outlet Dealerships under Secunderabad Retail, Nizamabad Retail and Warangal Retail Regional Offices and also to over 100 Direct Sales Customers. It is stated, on 14.05.2025, Tender No. 2500020541-HD-09050 (5100020541) was floated for awarding a 5-year contract commencing either from 01.07.2025 or from the date of issuance of LOA, whichever occurred later; tender was for transportation of bulk white petroleum products such as MS, HSD, and branded fuels from Secunderabad Terminal to HPCL locations, direct sales points and retail outlets both within and outside the State of Telangana. 3.2. It is stated, earlier tender for FY 2020-25 expired on 30.04.2025, but was extended with management approval, initially for four months and then for one more month till 30.09.2025 to ensure uninterrupted supplies and avoid scarcity of petroleum products. 3.2. It is stated, earlier tender for FY 2020-25 expired on 30.04.2025, but was extended with management approval, initially for four months and then for one more month till 30.09.2025 to ensure uninterrupted supplies and avoid scarcity of petroleum products. It is clarified, Secunderabad Terminal is a bottom-loading TT facility. While bidders were permitted to offer top-loading or bottom-loading TTs, the tender mandated that successful bidders must induct only bottom-loading TTs after receiving the LOA or convert their top-loading TTs within the stipulated period. The summary of estimated Tank Truck requirement published in tender document has been placed on record by the Corporation, including details schedule-wise as originally notified in the tender. 3.3. Respondents state that reservation policies for Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and MSE categories were mandatorily made applicable to this public tender as per the tender terms, including MSE-Women, MSE-SC/ST, MSE-General and General categories, with full explanation of the hierarchy and movement of unfilled or over-response quota as provided in the tender. Respondents summarise allocation process, which is strictly adhered to: (i) prioritization of MSE- Women and movement of unutilised quota to MSE-General; (ii) MSE-SC/ST quota moving similarly; (iii) MSE-General category absorbing leftover quota from women, SC and ST categories; (iv) SC and ST categories thereafter being filled; (v) remaining eligible bidders placed in the General category. All these steps were carried out following the tender document without deviation. 3.4. Respondents further state that ranking of bids was strictly based on financial outgo and tie-breakers included the number of owned bottom-loading TTs, number of attached bottom-loading TTs, total owned TTs, total attached TTs, average age of TTs, and total TTs offered. Ranking was done separately for each schedule—12-<18 KL, 18-<25 KL and 25 KL and above. Maximum allocation was capped at 15 TTs. per bidder, though there was no limit on the number of TTs a bidder could offer. Initial allocation list was prepared on 21.08.2025 and LOAs were issued on 27.08.2025. After a representation was received on 28.08.2025 alleging preference for booking slip TTs over ready TTs and top-loading over bottom-loading TTs, Respondent Corporation constituted a Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) for re-verification. After re-verification, minor discrepancies were noticed and a revised allocation list was published. 3.5. Initial allocation list was prepared on 21.08.2025 and LOAs were issued on 27.08.2025. After a representation was received on 28.08.2025 alleging preference for booking slip TTs over ready TTs and top-loading over bottom-loading TTs, Respondent Corporation constituted a Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) for re-verification. After re-verification, minor discrepancies were noticed and a revised allocation list was published. 3.5. It is summarised that petitioner participated under MSE-General category, offering 7 TTs for Schedule-1 (>12 & <18 KL), 11 TTs for Schedule-2 (>18 & <25 KL), and 6 TTs for Schedule-3 (>25 KL). He was selected only in Schedule-2 with 11 TTs. He was not selected in Schedules 1 and 3 because other bidders with more owned, bottom-loading and newer TTs secured higher ranks, fulfilling the TT requirement before petitioner’s ranking was reached. Respondents clarify that petitioner’s statement that the last date for submission of bids was 31.10.2025 is incorrect. The last date was initially 04.06.2025 and later extended to 06.06.2025. Eligibility criteria remained unchanged throughout the tender process. So also, petitioner’s claim that tender was floated for 13 years is false and it was issued only for 5 years from 01.07.2025 or from the date of LOA. It is asserted that ranking and allocation were done in strict conformity with the tender, including ranking criteria, sequence and purchase preferences. No arbitrary rejection of petitioner’s TTs occurred. All documents of all bidders, including RCs, PESO licences and calibration certificates, were verified by the TEC. Further verification through PESO and VAHAN portals proved all documents genuine. Physical verification of TT engines and chassis of Respondent No. 6 was also conducted at Secunderabad POL Terminal. 3.6. These Respondents reiterate that petitioner’s representation was duly examined and answered through letter dated 30.10.2025 after cross-verification of the concerned TT documents. It was again clarified that Clause 15 regarding average age was applied properly; ranking was done schedule- wise and allocation was made only until the full requirement of each schedule was satisfied. In Schedules 1 and 3, higher- ranked bidders with more bottom-loading, owned and newer TTs filled the requirement before reaching the petitioner. 3.5. It is explained that after the Court’s observation in the order dated 06.11.2025, a clarification was sought from the Legal Metrology Department, Vadodara Division-2, Gujarat on 23.10.2025 which replied confirming that calibration on 02.06.2025 was performed based on the RC produced at the time. 3.5. It is explained that after the Court’s observation in the order dated 06.11.2025, a clarification was sought from the Legal Metrology Department, Vadodara Division-2, Gujarat on 23.10.2025 which replied confirming that calibration on 02.06.2025 was performed based on the RC produced at the time. The RC was verified by Legal Metrology and accepted as valid. Respondents explain that RC produced by petitioner shows that RC for TT No. TS08UA8466 was re-issued on 03.06.2025 only due to hire-purchase termination and ownership transfer, therefore, calibration done on 02.06.2025 was based on the earlier RC, and not fabricated. Thus, the allegation that Respondent No. 6 submitted fake documents is incorrect. 4. The 8 th respondent filed counter stating that the 6 th respondent represented by Ms.Mounika Goda submitted tender under MSME Women Quota for 5 trucks (18 KL–29 KL capacity); she received allotment for 4 vehicles of 18 KL–24 KL and one vehicle of 25 KL–29 KL; this is her first participation in the women quota. The allegation that her vehicles have fake documents is false as all vehicles possess valid RC books, explosive licences with maps and calibration certificates. The Corporation inspected vehicles, found them genuine and issued LOA. Before fuel loading could begin, an interim order was passed, due to which the contract has not commenced. 4.1. It is stated, the 7th respondent participated with 19 vehicles and received allotment for 11. All 19 vehicles have valid original documents; the allegation that vehicle No. TS12UD4070 lacks valid documents is incorrect. This vehicle has been operating for three years in the Corporation and regularly transporting petroleum products. Due to the interim order based on unverified allegations, allotment to these vehicles has been stopped, causing hardship. 4.2. Likewise, it is stated, the 8 th respondent (nominated) participated with 20 vehicles and received allotment for 14. All 20 vehicles have valid documents. The allegation that three vehicles lack valid documents is false. Due to the interim order, allotment to these vehicles has also been stopped, causing loss. Vehicles of respondents 6 to 8 were physically inspected and scrutinized by the Corporation and were found genuine, based on which ratings and allotments were issued. 4.3. As per tender conditions, an individual/company is entitled to a maximum allotment of 15 vehicles based on rating, which depends on the vehicle model, capacity and number of vehicles held. Vehicles of respondents 6 to 8 were physically inspected and scrutinized by the Corporation and were found genuine, based on which ratings and allotments were issued. 4.3. As per tender conditions, an individual/company is entitled to a maximum allotment of 15 vehicles based on rating, which depends on the vehicle model, capacity and number of vehicles held. Respondents 6 to 8 uploaded valid documents after inspection by the Corporation and licensing authorities (Transport Department and Explosives Department) and were accordingly, allotted vehicles. Delay in allotment will cause continuous hardship. Calibration was done on 02-06-2025, and the authorities issued the certificate on 03-06-2025. 4.4. It is also stated, the allegation that vehicle No. TS08UA8466 was registered on 03-06-2025 is incorrect, it was registered on 02-06-2025, and the certificate was issued on 03-06-2025. The allegation that vehicle No. AP39WE0955 is fake and shown as TS08UD6633 is also false; this vehicle has original chassis and registration numbers. Similar false allegations were made against vehicle No. TG16T3107 and no manipulation was done. For the 7 th respondent, the allegation that vehicle No. TS12UD4070 has changed registration/chassis numbers is false. Original documents are available. Regarding Respondent No. 8, the allegation that vehicles TG16T3147, TG16T3148, and TG16T3146 (dated 22-05-2025) have fake documents or altered chassis numbers is false. All three vehicles have genuine numbers and were inspected by the authorities. Allegations in para 9 of the affidavit against respondents 6 to 8 are false. All vehicles were inspected and certified, but due to these allegations, allotment for about 30 vehicles has been stopped, which is illegal and unsustainable. 4.5. According to this respondent, petitioner is operating his own vehicles while blocking theirs; petitioner is a non-local, running vehicles registered in another State; to cover his lapses, he made false allegations and even accused five members of the selection committee without impleading them, making the writ liable for dismissal. Petitioner made baseless allegations without obtaining certified copies. The claim that Respondents 6 to 8 manipulated vehicle or chassis numbers is incorrect. The petitioner is liable for prosecution for filing a false affidavit and misleading the Court. It is also stated, tender process is transparent and allotments are given to many persons. About 400 vehicles operate in the corporation, including petitioners. Hence, prays that this Writ Petition may be dismissed. 5. The petitioner is liable for prosecution for filing a false affidavit and misleading the Court. It is also stated, tender process is transparent and allotments are given to many persons. About 400 vehicles operate in the corporation, including petitioners. Hence, prays that this Writ Petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Rasuri Shivaraj, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondents 2 to 5, Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of Respondents 6 to 8. 6. From a perusal of the material on record, especially the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents, it is clear that petitioner participated under MSE-General category, offering 7 TTs for Schedule-1 (>12 & <18 KL), 11 TTs for Schedule-2 (>18 & <25 KL), and 6 TTs for Schedule-3 (>25 KL). He was selected only in Schedule-2 with 11 TTs.; he was not selected in Schedules 1 and 3 because other bidders with more owned, bottom-loading and newer TTs secured higher ranks, fulfilling the TT requirement before petitioner’s ranking was reached. Documents of all the bidders, including RCs, PESO licences and calibration certificates, were verified by the TEC and further verification through PESO and VAHAN portals proved all the documents genuine. Physical verification of TT engines and chassis of Respondent No. 6 was also conducted at Secunderabad POL Terminal. 7. It is also to be seen that the 6th respondent represented by Ms.Mounika Goda submitted tender under MSME Women Quota for 5 trucks (18 KL–29 KL capacity); she received allotment for 4 vehicles of 18 KL–24 KL and one vehicle of 25 KL–29 KL; this is her first participation in the women quota. In view of the allegation that her vehicles have fake documents, a clarification was sought from the Legal Metrology Department, Vadodara Division-2, Gujarat on 23.10.2025 which replied confirming that calibration on 02.06.2025 was performed based on the RC produced at the time. The RC was verified by Legal Metrology and accepted as valid. Respondents explained that RC produced by petitioner shows that RC for TT No. TS08UA8466 was re-issued on 03.06.2025 only due to hire-purchase termination and ownership transfer, therefore, calibration done on 02.06.2025 was based on the earlier RC, and not fabricated. Thus, the allegation that Respondent No. 6 submitted fake documents is incorrect. Respondents explained that RC produced by petitioner shows that RC for TT No. TS08UA8466 was re-issued on 03.06.2025 only due to hire-purchase termination and ownership transfer, therefore, calibration done on 02.06.2025 was based on the earlier RC, and not fabricated. Thus, the allegation that Respondent No. 6 submitted fake documents is incorrect. Further, the Corporation inspected vehicles, found them genuine and issued LOA. 8. As regards the 7th respondent, respondents asserted that they participated with 19 vehicles and received allotment for 11. All 19 vehicles have valid original documents; the allegation that vehicle No. TS12UD4070 lacks valid documents is incorrect as the said vehicle was operating for three years in the Corporation and regularly transporting petroleum products. Likewise, the 8th respondent (nominated) participated with 20 vehicles and received allotment for 14. All 20 vehicles have valid documents, according to respondents. Vehicles of Respondents 6 to 8 were also physically inspected and scrutinized by the Corporation and were found genuine, based on which ratings and allotments were issued. 9. As per tender conditions, an individual/company is entitled to a maximum allotment of 15 vehicles based on rating, which depends on the vehicle model, capacity and number of vehicles held. Respondents 6 to 8 uploaded valid documents after inspection by the Corporation and licensing authorities (Transport Department and Explosives Department) and were accordingly, allotted vehicles, as is evident from the documents annexed to the counter-affidavits. 10. Further, petitioner’s representation dated 11.10.2025 relating to Tender was duly examined by the Corporation and a detailed and reasoned reply was issued on 30.10.2025, informing that all the Tank Trucks (TTs) mentioned in his representation had already been verified during the TT induction process by comparing their details with records on Government portals; it was further clarified that calibration certificate dated 02.06.2025 issued for TT No. TS08UA8466, as well as documents for TT No. AP39WE0955, had been physically verified at Secunderabad Terminal and cross-checked on PESO and RC databases, confirming their authenticity. Petitioner’s doubts regarding Clause 15 concerning the average age criteria were also clarified by informing that ranking is done schedule- wise strictly in accordance with the tender conditions and no malpractice or irregularity had occurred in the tender process, therefore, his representation dated 11.10.2025 stood closed vide letter dated 30.10.2025. 11. Petitioner’s doubts regarding Clause 15 concerning the average age criteria were also clarified by informing that ranking is done schedule- wise strictly in accordance with the tender conditions and no malpractice or irregularity had occurred in the tender process, therefore, his representation dated 11.10.2025 stood closed vide letter dated 30.10.2025. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner placed on record the order of Controller of Explosives, dated 18.11.2025 whereby the licence granted to G. Mounika to transport Petroleum Class ‘A’ and ‘B’ in Tankers situated in tank truck is hereby suspended as an interim measure with immediate effect till 16.02.2026. Another letter addressed to G.Mounika by the Controller of Explosives stating that on the complaint dated 17.11.2025 received from Rasuri Shiva Raj stating that Certificate of Registration for the vehicle bearing Registration No. TS 08 UA 8466 was issued on 03.06.2025 by RTA, Uppal, Medchal District; on scrutiny of the documents along with Certificate of Registration uploaded on line for grant of license, it seems that she had submitted forged Certificate of Registration and in view of the same, licene granted to her was cancelled with immediate effect. 12. From the above documents, it is clear petitioner’s advocate gave a complaint against G. Mounika, based on which the Controller of Explosives observed that ‘it seems that you have submitted forged Certificate of Registration’. It is quite strange how petitioner’s advocate lodged a complaint and how the Controller of Explosives, without issuing notice or giving an opportunity to Mounika, straight away cancelled her licence with immediate effect. Moreover, petitioner though made an allegation against the Selection Committee Members named in the affidavit, failed to implead them which further undermines the Writ Petition. 13. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion, official respondents acted in strict compliance with tender provisions, applied ranking and allocation rules consistently and transparently. The Court therefore, holds that Writ Petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 15. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.