The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S'S' PRASAD, REPRESENTING FOR SRI S N CHIDAMBARASASTRY Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS' DOMINIC FERNANDES (SC FOR locL) Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI G' VIDYA SAGAR' APPEAARING ON BEHALF OF SRI M. AVINASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI S'RAVI, REP FOR SRI M'P' KASHYAP The Court made the following: ORDER - HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPr'.] iA WRIT PETITIO N No. 16559 OF 2o25 ORDER: The c:rsc of petitioncr is that pursLli tr 't to the Tender Noticc issucd by Lhe lst respondent for Bunkt r supply ol black oil and n'hrte oil through tanker barg': to thc coastal/foreign rull sea going vessels berthed at irtlt r harbor, outer lrarbor, and outer anchorage of Vtzag Port' Petitioner along s,ith others sr.tbmitted tenders. The name ol- [:titioner's barge IS CAPSTAR 1. Alter gcttrng fully satis I :d about Petitioner's bargc, the 1'r Respondent accepted t te Lender submitted by them. l'ctitioner tcndered for 30% tr'].1 iportation of thc ()il and it stoocl as L2 among [he Tenderers, I being for 507o transportation. It is submittccl that the 1st lR:spondent issued Letter ol Acceptancc (LOA) dated 20 'O2 ''20 ' 5, as per ,*,hich, thc period o[ conlract is threc years from the ( ate of thc LoA, cxtendablc fltrr :r further pcriod of 9 months ( n mutual conscnt, in line, u'ith (icM conditrons. lt is stated l)e t ioner hacl complit:cl with all thc [ormalitics lor clearance of its 'ert]r from Kakinada Port to ViTag Port for transporting the blat I oi1/white - oil, as per Lhc requirement and the work orders of the l sr Respondcnt in accordancc with the LOA. i.l. It is stated, the lst Respondent issued petitioner Work Order dated 12.03.2 O2S tor transporting white oil and black oil to coastal and foreign_run vessels stationed at Vizag Port through tankcr barges (small category barges). Under thc re levant Rules and Regulations governing the movemen t of barges, petitioner applied on O3.O3.2O25 for clearance of its Barge from Kakinada port; the said port delayed issuance of clearance. Thereafter, on 12.O3.2025, the lstRespondent issued u.ork ordcr n hich should be folloq,ed by due execution of the prescribcd Contract and issuance of LOA. As Kakinada port was dclaying clcarance, petrtroner re-submitted its Application on 22.03.2025. As there was no response, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8234 of 2O2S and Kakinada port issued clearance. By a n e mail, petitioner informed the lsr Respondent that lts Barge would bc ready in all respects at Vizag port by 27.o3.2025.

1.2. As per normal practice and procedure rn vogue, the l't Respondent has to fo ow up the said LoA with a written pre:cribed contract and issuance of LOA for transportation of I - [he oil, pursuant to the said work ordcr. The 1sr Res r rndcnt dicr not get the prescribed contract duly executed by pe-l -ioner and no LOA was issued to pel itioner_ petitioner receiveil an e mail dated 21.03.202.: from the I s, Rcspondent to positio r the Barge within 30 days lrom rhe clatc of LOA i.e by 21.03.!r 25 failing whiCh, the said LOA is liabte for cancellation. A(.( ordrng to petitioner, this communication is illcgal and imperr i ;siblc, as, by 21.O3.2O25, 30 davs did not expire from the date,) the LOA. The lst Rcspondent lailecl to noticc that Fcbruitry h:; only 2g days.

1.3. Petitioner senr e mail dated 2g.O3.20,)5 nforming that its Barge arrived aL Vizag port on 2g.O3 .2025 ar r is ready for the procedural inspections by the i,r Respondcn, followed by e mail dated 29.03.2025 informing the l"r Respon Lent that survey of its Barge b1t Y izag port \ :as completed anc hat VpT Harbour Craft license rvas also issued b,y the said pr,r t. Again, on O1.O1.2025 at I2.59 hours, by another e mzrjl rll tl_rese aspects were communrcatecl to thc lsr Respondent r r luesting them to issue Letter of Intent for transport:rtion of oil, il , per the sard work order given to petitione r. Howe'er, petitior-re - received an e mail dated 01.04.2025 (at 19.25 hours) from o:: o1 thc - officials of the Ist Respondent stating that as per the earlier e mail dated 2l .O3.2O25' the said LOA issued to petitioner stands cancelled, as, by 21.O3.2O25, they did not keep its barge ready. It referred to "Point 4 in the Tender conditions" which has no application at the stagc of LOA. The lst Respondent did not notice that February month has only 28 days and that even 30 days did not expire bv 2l -O3.2O25 from the date of LOA which is dated 20.02.2025. It failed to bear in mind that LOA was reccived by petitioner on 22.O2.2025. In law, under the General Clauses Act thc dar on'"l'hich any communication was received has to bc excludcd lor computation of any pe riod pre scribed'

1.4. [L is also stated, thc action of the lst Respondent in cancclling thc LOA is arbitrary, illegal and is in gross violation of thc principles of natural justice. Challenging the e mail dated Ol-O4 2025, petilioner hled Writ Petition No 15O34 of 2025 which vr.as disposecl of on 07 05-2O25 observing that in view of thc fact that LOA dated 2O-O2-2O25 issued by the l't respondent in favour of petitioner indicated the period of contract as thrce I'cars from the date of LOA with a clear stipulation that the said period is extendable for a further period of nine months on mutual consent in line with GeM conditions -- andthesamehadbeencancelledunilaterallywith()llfollowing the principles o[ natural justrce, tl-ris Court u'as ol hc opinion that Respondents 1 and 2 had acted hastily in dea irg with the subject issue and passed the order impugncd rl r:hanically' erroneously, u'ithout application of mind mala 'fir'ttt1- Hence' tht:l,tRespondentwasdirectedtoreconsidertlrimpugncd decision dated 01.04.2025, r'r'ithin four wceks fronr thc date of the order and further directed that till then' no c I rrcit'e steps shall be taken against petitioner and against its Barl e' Pursuant to the said direction' petil i I rcr made a 1.5. detailed representation dated 11 O5-2O25' hou'r" cr' the 1st respondent issued the impugned order on 06 06 2i) )'5 cleclining their request, Challenging the said order' this W- Petition is hlcd. l'his Court by order dated 01 07 2 ) 25' granted 2. status quo existing as on date till filing thc countCt rlfidavit and the said order was cxrended lrom time lo lime' The 1'r respondcnt filed counter stati'l i tl'rat Barge 3. of petitioner \^'as at Kakinada Port and \\'as r( ( r'rirt d to be placed at Vizag with all Clearances and Permissiorr; As per the mail of petitioner daLed. 29-03-2025, they inforrn: I that Barge 6 would be ready in all aspe cts by 27 -O3-2O25 whereas it was - supposed to be produced for inspection within 30 days of LOA i.e. by 21-03-2025 (both days inclusive). Hence, the contention o[ petitioncr that February has 28 days and 30 days did not expire on 2l-O3-2O25 from the date ol LOA 20-02-2025 is baseless and petitioner is again and again bringing the same into the matter. The fact mentioned in the mail of the petitioner dated 28-03-2025 that their barge has arrived at Visakhapatnam Port and berthed at GREEN CHANNEL berth on 28-03-2025, thereforc the cons[ant repetition by the petitioner that February has 28 days has no significance since 28-03-2025 is well beyond 30 days. Looked from any angle, petitioner could not produce the barge fr,r r inspection u,ithin 3O days. It was also mentioned that thc licenses applied/ submitted by paying all necessary fees and documcnts required for them on l2-O3-2O25 and it is still undcr process. Only on 29-03-2025 afternoon, petitioner had informed that survey by Visakhapatnam port is completed and VPT Harbour craft license is received. LOA clearly states that 'All tender documents including NIT, offer, special terms and conditions of contract, specifications, general description of works and relevant drawings, subsequent E -J 1 negotiatlons and all other correspondences connecte I rt'ith thc abovereferredtenderincludingthislettershallforrnplrtofthe Work Ordcr/ Contract" Hence the contention o[ tht letirroner that point-4 in the te nder conditions is not applici I Ie zrt thc stage ol the LOA is u'rong and mis-understood'

3.1. It is stated' the contract would t:omnr nce afler workisundertakencomplyingwiththeconditionsllLoAin accordance with tender terms and conditions Thc 'A ork Order was issued only to acknorl'ledge the Security De posi' rlrbmittecl ' but the contract is deemed Lo commence only after i l;pccLion o[ Barge rn'hich is ready tn all aspects Barge \\'as suf I osed to bc produced lor inspection ready in a1l aspects rvithir lO rlavs ol issuance of LOA which petitioner could not do Hen: :' L(JA u'as cancelled- It is also stated' based on thc tlirec'i rn in Writ opportunity ol personal I e:rring nas Petititrn No. 15034 of 2025 ' provirled to petitioner on 29-OS 2025 and' spcal<ir 1 orrlcr u'as passcd by the competent authority on O6=O6-2O2i>' It is stated' the entire tendering proces; Ls dotlc in a 3|2. transparcnt manner u'ithin the sct terms I conditions' Moreover, the fact that petitioner seiection for plac': ncnt of L()A r,'as based on the higher annual turnover criter z ancl hcnce It contrary to their own statement of being a small contractor' For alltheaforesaidreasonS,thisrespondentpraysthatWrit Petition maY be dismissed ' The 2"a respondent f rlcd the counter stating that .4. Writ Petition is not maintainable as the issues raised are contractual disputes involving disputed questions of facts' which cannot be decided in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India and thc partics be relegatcd to the civil Courts of competent .l urisd iction t() seck appropriate reliefs' transPortatlon [t is stated, t[6 ]nrr Rcspondcnt is a Registered 4.7. Partnership llrm constitLltccl [or thc purposc of bunker and its allied actrvities and has becn established since then has bccn serving alt its industrial in 1997 and customers \^,ith qualit]' servicc in the ficld ol Marine/ lndustrial lubricants markct operating ancl gained immense expertise and experience in supptying and trading of servo industrial trade Iubricants. The 1o rcspondent issued tender notification and one day before the last date of submission ol bids (thereafter the last date was extended to January, 2025), lhe I"t Respondent had issued a Corrigendum dated 26 12 2024 stating that in case of tie at L-1 position, GeM shall select the successful L1 9 bidder through 'system determined vendor selcction It lT'as also addecl that in case of tie at other than L- I position lidrlcr u'ith the highest turnover in any of the last three -vears rr ' submlttcd 't ior-r ol L- 2 against turnovcr criteria shall be considered for sr:]i and L-3 bidders. In exceptional cases, where turnor t same, the bicl submitted earlier in t'he Portal in t'' ms ol borh .2 and L.3 date and time, shalt be considered for selection ol -is also the bidders. It is pe rtinent to mention that Clause Nr ' the 'l'cnder Notihcation stated that in case of t ie br t more bidders at L- 1 position, GeM Modzrlit i applicable. ll tl're price bid of thc parties is one a nt is meaning thereby lhat under the said systt r somebody would be selected. It is submitted that 1l of the fivc te chnically-qualihed bidders werc 17.O2.2O25 and it was found that all the fivc h:r' t samc price for Lot- 1, therefore, all of thcm u'cre ; 23 (xxiii) oi \ c('n t\\'o or ; shall bc lre szrrne , it , r;rndotl h c pricc bicls opcned ()n quotcd thtr rou,n zrs L I and the tendering authority had selectcd Su1-'r :rne Marit-rc Services as L- 1 as per GeM system selection Be: t'r bearing the na lure of work, which requires br-Llk st r i I :rs it mzlv, rply of Oil to be made at Visakhapatnam Port, the notificatir' - zrlso stated that contract would also be awarded to two m()r ( rcrsons whrr l0 are L2 and L3 in the ratio of 50 : 30 : 20' being L-l: L-2" L-3 respectively Accordingly, Petitioner n'as selected as L-2 and this Respondent has been selected as L-4 The 1't respondent issued LoA to Petitioner on 2O'O2-2O25 [t is relevant to mention' under Clause 14 (17)(d) of the Noticc Inviting Tender (NIT)' bidder is required to give an undertaking on notarized 1OO/- Non Judicial stamp paper that he shall position the offered barrage ready in all aspec[s along n"ith required liccnces u'ithin 30 days of issuance of LOI/LOA aL Yizag Port F-urther' Clause 4 under Condition B Requirements of Barrage of Special Terms & Conditions (STC)/Special Condition o[ Cor]tract (SCC) specifically states that barge should be inspected by IOC or authorized surveyors and be ready in all aspects lor effecting bunker supplies within 30 days of LOI and that the LOA/LOl is liabletobecancelledincaseanypartyiailstocomplythesaid condition. Therefore, the said clauses goes to shoq'' that it is a mandatory requirement for thc biddcrs in u'hose lavour LOA has beenissuedthatthebargeshallbereadyinallaspectsatthe Vizag porl within 30 days from the date of issuance of LOA' Though LOA was issued on 20 02 '2025 ' Petitioner 4.2. failed to berth the barge within 3O days therefrom' thcrefore in terms of the Condition B clause 4 of the STC/SCC. he LOA uas cancelled and the same was communicated to Il titioner vide cmail dated O1.O4.2025- Thereafter, LOA dated C)(' )6'2O25 r'r'as issuccl in favour of this Respondcnt for carrying o I - thc subjcct work and requested to deposit security deposit as l:r the tendcr conditions. Accordingly, they paid Rs. 12,77,74'' - as Bank ()uarantee for the said u'ork as per the tender concl: 'ions' -+.3. As the matter stood thus, the presctt J/rit Petition czlme to be fited q'ith frivolous grounds and vexatir ts claim atlcl thrs Court by order dated 01.O7 .2025 directed to tnain[tritr stutr ls as on thaL day. As a result of the same it i:i stated, respondents have been lacing heavy pecuniary los; rs, therefore, it rs prayed to vacate the interim order. The 3'd respondent filed counter ttating that

5. pctitioncr (L2) w'as issued LOA on 20.O2.2O25 and 'orked orcler on 12.O3.2O25 . It is stated, L3 was awarded to M/ s Klr. Marine Scr-vice (2O9to), Letter of Acceptance (LOA) v-r s issued on

20.O2.2025 and u'ork order issued on 12.O3.2025 3oth L2 and L3 have not placed their barge in Visakhapatnaln )ort and not obtained any 'No Objection Certificate' from Vis rkhapatnam Port within rhe stipulated time as per Tender No - ns of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. As such the lst Respondent cancelled their work orders and further allocated the Work of 3Oo/u to L4- KAN Enterprises (Respondent No.2) and 2Oo/o to L5 Gayatri Marine Services (Respondent No.3) through Letter of Acceptance dated O6.06.2O25. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 sent e mail on 07.06.2025 to Respondent No.3 to submit all necessary documents along with PBG (Performancc Bank Guarantee) & Security Deposit for a total amount of Rs il,5 I ,I3l l-- Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 submitted all documents along u'ith Performance Bank Guarantee & securiq/ deposit on 17 '06'2025 and offered Barge 'VASPARI' for inspection to Respondent [ndian Oil Corporation Limited on 20.06.2025.

5.1. Respondent No. I Officers inspccted the bargc on

23.06.2025 and Respondent No.3 has been vvaitinB for orders and also sent an e mail on 2a.O6.2O25 requcsLing for allowing them to commence the work allotted and again on O4.O7.2025' apart from that, a representation was submitted on 14.O7 2025 at IOCL Terminal Y rzag and also a copy of the represcntation was sent to IOCL Hyderabad Office by post on I4.O7 .2025. Aggrieved by the inaction, Respondent No 3 preferred Writ Petition No. 21780 of 2025, wherein this Court by order dated I ..i

25.O7.2025, disposed of the Writ petition directi:r J respondent authorities to consider reprcsentation dated 13. )7.2025 and after giving a fair opportunity oI hearing to petili rner therein, rr:spondcnt shall pass appropriate orders in accol( ance to law, within four u'eeks from the datc of receipt of a cop.r of this ordcr and communicate the same to petitioner therein.

5.2. It is stated, while issuing the LOA to Respondenr No.3, Respondcnt No. I mentioned therein that L _ A is subje cr to ourcome of Writ petition No. 13863 of 2O2S filed 11, M/s K.K. M:lrine Serviccs, and the said Writ pctition was d: posed of bv ordcr daLed 30.06.202S directing respondent a: rhorities to consider representation dated 27.06.2025 and after 3iving a fair opportunity of hearing pass appropriate orders in ac:orda,ce to Iau, rvithin four rveeks from the date of receipt ,) a copy ol Order. It is srated, petitioner is not a party to Writ )etition No. 13863 of 202.i. petirioner who is L2 filed this Wrir I etition and Rcspondent No.3 has been made a party in the ;> esent Writ Petition, although rhe Respondent No.3/LS (2O%o ucrk allottee) has bcen allotred the work from a separate compon(r t, whrch is not concerned ri,ith petitioner, and by suppressing t I ; Iacts has l4 got interim stay order, as a result, the Respondent No.3 is facing lots of financial hardshiPs.

5.3. It is stated, Respondent No.3 is a successful linancial and technical bidder and submitted all documen[s t<.r Respondent No. I and also furnished Performance Bank Guarantee and Security Deposit, even then, Respondenl No. 1 detayed permitting Respondent No.3 to start work in pursuance ol LOA dt.O6.O6.2O25. Respondent No.3 had already incurred Rs.28.OO (Twenty Eight Lakhs) for the work, and the same has been informed to Respondent No.1 also. The u'ork originally a[[otted to Petitioner (30% work) was subsequently allottcd to Respondent No.2, but it was not allotted to Respondent No 3' The alleged component of work allotted to Petitioner does not pertain to Respondent No.3. Even then, Petitioner macle them as a party, by suppressing the facts and got stay order. [f at all, Lhere is any grievance, it ought to be against Respondents I and 2 and not wit the Respondent No.3.

5.4. The work component of 2O"k allotted to Respondent No.3 is from a separate component of work and nothing to do u,ith the allegations of Petitioner. Except naming Gayatri Marine --7 5 I Services as Respondent No.3, no specific aliegations are made by Petitioner.

6. Petitioner liled reply stating that the impugned order is in vrolation of the orclers in Writ Petition N I 15034 of 2O25 clated O7-O5 2025. In view of this, the cour-r t r aflldavi t fited by the deponent ol the counter afhdavit, is neir rer proper nor permissible. The deponent has no authority to rep r-esent the

1., respondent. It is for lhe competent officer r f the lst respondent to depose and ansurer the averments nLi de in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petitron. lt is for the signatory of thc impugncd order to explain as t l hour the impugned order is in compliance with or in conformtt . with the order dated 07 O5-2O25 in Writ petition No. 1503 { of 2025. Petitioner rciterated the averments in the Writ Petitiorr

7. Petitioner also filed reply to the counter rf the 2"d respondent almost reiterating his case.

8. Heard Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senir I Counsel representing Sri S.N. Chidambara Sastry, Iearned r:r unsel for petitioner, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senio:- Counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standin ;Counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learrr C Senior 16 Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Avinash Reddy, Iearned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M,P. Kashyap, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

9. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that this is the second round of litigation. Petitioner has already approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 15034 of 2O25 challenging the e mail dated 21.O2.2O25 at I 7.00 hours and e mail dated 01.04.2O25 at 19.25 hours, cancelling the LOA dated 2O.O2.2O25 issued to them on a wrong premise that by

21.O3.2025,30 days have lapsed from the date of LOA making it liable tor cancellation. This Court by order dated 07.O5-2O25, made the following observations in the said Writ Petition: " This court taken into consideration the fact as borne on record that the prayer sought for by the petitioner herern in W.P.No.8234/2025 on the file of the A.P. High Court and the praver sought for in the present writ petition i.e. W.P.No. 15034 /2025 on the file of the Telangana High Court being different from each other opines that thc present rvrit petition is maintainable as per Clause 22.7 (b) ol the notice inviting tender. This Court opines that even though the date of [,OA issued to the petitioncr is dated 2O-O2-2O25, facl remains that admittedll', the u,ork order issued to the petitioner is only on l2-O3 2025 and the petitioner admittedly can commence his work only after receipt of the work order from the lst respondent and not earlier than that, and - 17 therefore this court opines that the action of the 1st Respondents irr cancelling the u,ork order on the ground tha failed to offer the barge for inspection by IOC/lOC lndependent Surveyors ready in all respects for effectrn supplies before the due date 2l-O3 2025 r.e. within 30 da\ datc of LOA is not onl], arbitrarl., rvhimsical, mechanical bu unreasonable, unfair and unJust". ancl 2nd petitioner ruthorised a bllnkers i from the tlso highly ed b-v the lents that of the 1st .ail to the 5 and the I\\,ith an -ecord, no rming the )ndents I c) "lt is also borne on record and even adm t learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respor admittedly, prior to the issuance of the Lmpugned proceedinr!r and 2nd respondents dtd.O1-04 2025 communicated by e r pefitroner inlorming the petitioner that its LOA (1td.2o O2_,2o,. rvork order stands cancelled, the petitioner was not provir t opportunit\-of personal hearing and admittedly, as borne oit specihc Shor.v Cause notice u,as issuerl to Ihe petitioner ini petitioner about the proposed actron contemplated by the rcs F and 2 and lurther calling for cxplanation from the petitioner d) 'Thrs court opines that in vieu,of the fact as borne on recor LOA dtd 2O-O2 2025 issued b1, the 1st respondcnt in fa,r petitioner indicated the period of contract as three years from the LOA with a u,ith a further clear stipulation that the sa. exten.lable lor a further period of nine months on mutual cons with GeM conditions and the same had been cancelled r without even providing an opportuntt\ of personal hear r petitioner and without issuing a prior sho!\, cause notice int:r petitioner about the proposed cancelation ol LOA by the respc r l and 2 alrd calling for explanations from the petitioncr- s referring to the grounds on rhich the said action was pro) court opines that the rcspondents I and 2 had acted hastill with the subject issue an.l had passed the order mechanicallv, erroneously, q,ithout applrcation of mind, malaf ( ely-,, I that the ur of the re date of period is rnt ir.r line r ilaterallv g to the ating the Cent nos. )cci[ically sed, this -1 dealing rrpugned

13. It is submitted that with the above conclusions 1 Hon,ble court, 'in the light of the discussion, reasoning and conclusi( I s arnved Itt at paras I lo 12' of its order disposed of the said writ Petition' inter alia directing the 1st Rcspondent to re consider the impugned decision of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, dated 01 04 2025 communicated by emarl to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that its LOA dated 20'O2 2025 and the work order stands cancelled, in accordance rvtth la\^' " "

10. Having considered the respective contentions and perllsed the record, it is to be noted that undisputedly LOA was issued on 20 .O2.2O25, however, the actual work order was issued only on 12.O3.2O25, and u'hen respondent-authorities cancelled thc cotltract on the ground of delay in readying the barge b-v petilioncr (u'hich is supposed to be within 30 days from the date o[ LOA), this Court has held that work order having been issued otl 12.O3.2025' cancellation of contract on 21.O3.2025 (i.e., u'ithin 10 days) is arbitrary, and illegal; therefore, directed the authorities to reconsider the decision' The said order has become final. 11 However, iI is curious to note that respondent- the earlier authorities, after the alleged re- consideration of cancellation decision, has once again passed the impugned order upholding their previous decision of cancellation on the very same ground of detay in readying the barge within 30 days period. A perusal of the impugned order would not reveal any l9 other legally-tenable ground, except reiterating tl- c vory samc stand of delay that has already been adjudicated r rd zrnswerecl in the earlier Writ petition. At thc cost o[ repetrtio: , this Court notes that LOA n a s dated 20 .O2 .2025 and r I : pcriod ol calculation adoptecl under LOA is in "da1,s,, anrl l rl ..rnonths,,, therefore, when the period of readying the bargr: rs specified as "30 days", calculation of 30 days commencing fr<nc. ,tO.O2.2025 would end b1 22.O3.2025. Therefcrre, evcn ol1 tlt: calc:ulzrtion aspect, the in'rpugnecl order is liable to be set asick: 12. Further, u,hen once this Court has acir t<iicated Lhe earlier canccllation on thc grour-rd of dclay zrs rllcgal and arbitrary, with a further direction to reconsider Ic dt:cision, duly giving petitioner an opportunity of hearing, rl c :rction of the responden t-authoritv in cancelling thc c()rr I rct of thc petitioner on the very same ground of dela' is a blerri rt vioration of the order of this Court. It is also not the case o tspondent authorities that petirioner is not tech nically-comp(,1( tt and has no wherewithal to provide/ready the barge within I stipulated time. In that vier,", of Lhe matter, thc impugned ordc - is liable to be set aside. 20

13. Coming to the aspect of rnaintainability, learned Senior Counsel Sri G. Vidyasagar contends on behalf of the 2"4 respondent that in matters of contracts / tenders, even if Courts find that there is total arbitrariness, still Courts should refrain from interfering and instead relegate the parties to seek damage and that the attempts by persons / hrms such as petitioner with imaginary grievances u,ounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out o[ molehills of some technical / procedural violation shoulcl be resisted. Therefore, balance of convcnience is in favour of the 2nd respondent. In support of his contention, learned Scnior Counsel relied on the renowncd judgment on lhe subject of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.G.Projects Limited v. Vinod. Kumar Jctnr, wherein, it has been held at para 23 as under: " [n vieu'of the atxrr,,e judgments of this Court, thc \vrit court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to \ri,hether or nol to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examinc the terms and conditions of the present da-v economic activitics of thc State and this limitation should be kept in vie\a - Courts should be even more reluctant in interfenng \a,ith contracts involving technical lssues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issucs. The approach of the Court should be not to find tault with magnif\ ing glass in its hands, ' (20:l) 6 scc t:z -- rather the Court should e xamine as to whether ttre der r ion making process is after complying $.rth the procedure contenrr)l rted bv the ten(ler condltrons. tf the Court finds that there is total iLr r Lrariness oT that the tender has been grante(l in a mala fide manner, :r ll the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender l)ut in i ]ad r(-'legate the partres to seek damages for the wrongful exclusiorr rii-rer []ran to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or itrl :rference in the tender Ieads to additional (:osts on the State and Ls lso against pubhc interest. Therefore, the State and its citrzens sufter \\'ice, firstly b1, paying escalation costs and secondly, by being delrr rcd of th<: inlrastructure for which the present day Governmertts ar expected to rvork. "

14. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ve<lt L a Srinivzrs appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent also rr lied on thc judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdis:l Ma-nd.al u. State oJ Orissa2 dnd Agmdtel India (P) Ltd.. t,. Resoursgrs Telecotn3. He contends that when the powcr of .itL, icial rcview is invoked in matters relating to tenders or arvarrl ( f contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. ,r colttract is a commercial transaction. trvaluating tendcrs a r I awardirrg con[racts are essentially commercial functions. t rinciplcs of equitv and natural justice stay at a distance. [l t] e decision relating to award o[ contract is bono ftde ancl i; in public interc's[, courts will not, in exercise of powe r oI jr-r,l cial rcvicrv, t (:oor) r.t scc s r '1:ozzr s scc s6z )) interfere even if a procedural abcrration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will noL be permitted lo be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. Thc tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil Court. He also submitted that a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial rcvieu', should pose to itself the following questions: i) whether thc process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intendcd lo favour someone; ii) whcther public interest is affected. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the tcchnical cvaluation or comparison try the Court is impermissible, ancl even if the interpretation given to the tender document by thc person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering rvilh the interpretation given.

15. In the light of thc above submissions, it is to be noted that though this Courl does not sit in judicial review in contractual matters, for the rcason that responden t-authorities requiring exccution of a certain work are better equipped to - I I determine and prescribe the eligibility conc i ions and qualifications lor a contractor to participate in r particular tender/contract and execute a given task under t I i co n trac t. Hou,evcr, in case of any alleged irregularities in rI t tcndc:ring process itself, or in providing equal opportunily as 1r, r larv w,ilh regard to participation in the tendering process, or rr observing the principles o[ natural justice, the powers of thi; broad and it can entertain a Writ petition to stril<r, Corlrt are rlrtu'n anr' such ille gal action.

16. In this context, it is to be noted that rr t hrs Writ Pctition, this Court is not sitting in de termining the icibilit_v oI petitioner per se to execute the work issued under thr admittedly, work order was issued to petiti ) l-()A; and lcr after determining his eligibility. However, the same was c;l rcclk:d on the ground of delay in readying the barge for inspec rn (r,v[rich n as already adjudicated in an earlier wril petition z r cl held ro be illegal). Therefore, the action o[ the respondenl irL Lhor-itv in passing the impugned Order, cancelling the col I act is a mechanical exercise and the impugned Order herein ry rvithout application of mind and in violation of rl passed by this Court in Writ petition No.15034 of 20)i Ls perssed :l Orders . u,hcrein z4 it was specihcally held that cancellation of contract of petitioner on the ground of delay was iliegal as the 3O-day period has not expired. Further, this Court has also considered the aspect that LOA was dated 20.02.2025 and the Work Order was dated

12.03.2025, and the cancellation was dated 2l'O3'2O25, and after adjudicating the issue, held that such cancellation was illegal and therefore, the decision requires reconsideration' Ho$/ever, ir-rterestingly, the respondcnt authorities 17 - quote the very same ground of delay in readying the barge within 3O days and again passed the same order of cancellation of tender by way of the impugned order' Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside Further, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No 2 that their client has been performing the contract consequent to cancellation of tender of petitioner, and that lhere are interim orders (status quo) in their favour, cannot be counlenanced, lor the reason that the very cancellation of contract of petitioner is illegal, and further they cannot claim equities on the basis of stotus quo orders passed bY this Court. Insofar as Respondent No 3 is concerned, the 18. essential contention is that petitioner was awarded 3O%o of 25 contractual u,ork and later Respondent No.3 was of u,ork and there is no overlap between the vvor petitioner an<i Respondent No.3. This specific srri not been disputed by petitioner. 19. This Court desires to place on record i _r ovcr the manner in which Respondent _ Indian ()il passed the impugned order. The Corporatio _r instrumentalit-r. of rhe State under Article 12 of thc : is bouncl undcr u.rir jurisdiction and to comply wirl of this Court. It is unexpected from the Corporat passed the impugned proceedings again on the ground that has already been held as untenable i.t Writ pctition. iwarded 20% :s allotted to mission has displeasure Corporation being an rnstitution, the orders rn to have ver]' same an earlier

20. The Writ petition is therefore, allow,ed. s : the impugnecl proceedings dated 06.06.2025. respondcnt is d irccl ccl to take all the necessary corl action to issue thc rcquired proceedings permitting p _. carry. on its con tractua I obligations as per LOA and ,l issued as expeditious.ly as possible, preferably withirr t from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cosr r ting asidc The 1st equential itioner to rrk ordcr vo q,eeks 26

21. Consequently, Miscellaneous shall stand closed_ Applications, if any SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN SSIS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 n 4 R I nd i a n o i r c o rpo ra ti o n L i m i ted " +:llru':: 3 *T'^"lrH,.T!?:tg.?'Y['o"J;,UE One CC to SRI S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY' Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS' DOMINIC FERNANDES (SC FOR rocL) One CC to SRI N4 AVINASH REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI M P KASHYAP' Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies PVL PSK e & HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 ORDER WP.No.16559 of 2025 1f l2 Dii lifi I {: rt t-' \ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (Yr ( \'.1 A \2 2)