Joydeep Das And 3 Ors vs Oil India Ltd. And 2 Ors

The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-conference.

Heard Mr. A. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel, OIL appearing for

respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

Considering the nature of the case and also submissions advanced before this Court today, this Court is of the view that this petition can be disposed

of at this stage without issuing any formal notice to the private respondent.

The grievance of the petitioners is that a E-Tender was floated by the OIL on 20.03.2020 for hiring the services of 12KL Capacity bowsers

(tankers) for transportation of crude oil/condensate from various OIL’s Field Locations in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam for a period of 3 (three)

years with a provision of extension by another 1(one) year.

In terms of the said E-Tender, the draw of lots were held on 27.04.2021 to select the successful bidders. The respondent No.3 was one of the

successful bidders who was selected through draw of lots for award of the contract. According to the petitioners, on verification made by them, it was

found that the respondent No.3 had produced Registration Certificates in respect of 2(two) vehicles which were found to be manipulated inasmuch as

though the last date of submission of the online bids was 13.10.2020, the respondent No.3 had produced the Registration Certificates (bearing

registrations no. AR-16A-4608 and AR-16A-4609) bearing date 02.12.2020.

In other words, the respondent No.3 submitted documents which could not have been submitted on the last date of submission of bid i.e. 13.10.2020.

Accordingly, the petitioners submitted representation to the authorities concerned. However, having got no positive response from the authorities,

the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the proposed award of contract in favour of the respondent No.3.

Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel, OIL, however, has submitted that even before the petitioners submitted the representations, the

authorities made a verification on their own on 07.05.2021 of the documents of the selected bidders, during which process, the defects in the said

Registration Certificates submitted by the respondent No.3 were detected and accordingly, the bid of the respondent No.3 was rejected. In that view

of the matter, even if, the respondent No.3 was initially included as one of the successful bidders for the purpose of award of the contract, the

respondent No.3 will not be given any contract because of the said defects and as such, he has submitted that the petition has virtually becomes

infructuous as nothing survives for consideration by this Court.

In view of the submission made by Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel, OIL, this Court is of the view that if the bid of the respondent

No.3 had been rejected, though subsequently, by the authorities, nothing survives for further consideration in this case by this Court. Accordingly, this

petition has become infructuous. However, the authorities will do the needful to bring to the logical conclusion of the tender process so that any other

deserving bidder including the petitioners, if they are found meritorious and found not to be suffering from any defect, may be considered for award of

the contract.

Liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court again, if subsequent cause of action arises.

With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of.