The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 25005 of 2025 M/s. Omm Shree Transport …. Petitioner Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others …. Opposite Parties -Versus- Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ananya Pradhan, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap, Senior Panel Counsel CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Judgment:28th November, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. Although the matter is listed at the stage of admission, the counsel appearing for the respective parties proceeded to argue the
Decision
matter on the basis of the documents annexed to the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 and tried to interpret the same what they perceived from the language used therein. 2. After hearing respective counsel, we find that the facts are undisputed but they are not ad idem on the applicability of certain terms and conditions constituting the contract between the parties. In view of the same, we did not find any impediment in proceeding to decide the matter as the gamut of the dispute is founded and/or based upon the applicability of the clauses embodied in the contract. 3. Before we proceed to address the pivotal issue raised in the instant writ petition, the undisputed facts are adumbrated for the purpose of clarity and precision in determining the points raised before us. 3.1 Pursuant to the tender floated by the opposite party No.1 for “road transportation of bulk petroleum products by bottom loading tank trucks- MS/HSD/Branded fuels” from Paradip terminal to different locations within the State and outside the State, undeniably, the petitioner was declared the successful tenderer having quoted the lowest price and a letter of acceptance W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 dated 2nd December, 2021 was issued by the opposite party No.1 to the petitioner. The said letter of acceptance revealed that the petitioner is required to furnish the requisite security deposit within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the said letter of acceptance and execute the agreement as per the tender terms. Apart from the same, the list of the Tank Trucks (TTs) of six numbers out of which two numbers of TTs have 12 to 16 Kilo Liter capacity and the rest have 18 to 40 Kilo Liter capacity to be attached thereto for the purpose of its utilization in terms of the contract. In order to eradicate any confusion in discerning the fact, it is to be noted that while participating in the tender, one of the requisite conditions is to disclose the TTs of the specified capacity and on awarding the contract, those TTs would be attached for the purpose of transportation with the opposite party No.1. The contract was awarded for such purpose for a period of five years and is still in operation. 3.2 The genesis of the dispute can be traced from a letter dated 31st July, 2025 issued by the petitioner to the opposite party No.1 for exchange of two TTs having a capacity of 12 to 16 KL as they are experiencing mechanical issues, i.e., the engine performance, W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 the frequent breakdowns and the loading failures impeding the continuous, uninterrupted and seamless service of transportation with a request to replace the said vehicles with the other two vehicles. On the next day, i.e., 1st August, 2025, the petitioner further wrote a letter to the opposite party No.1 seeking the replacement of the above two TTs with the new TTs having higher capacity and of a recent model as they intend to participate in another tender floated by other oil company. 3.3 The Indian Oil Corporation responded by issuing a “no objection certificate” of the even date for participation of those TTs in the other tender. Immediately thereafter the proposal was made on 06.08.2025 by the petitioner to replace the aforesaid TTs of recent model with higher capacity which was duly received by the Indian Oil Corporation, but did not release those two TTs nor communicated the replacement thereof. The reminders were made by the petitioner through e-mail that despite no objection certificate having issued, the said TTs have not been released and reminded them of releasing those two TTs. Subsequently, on 29.08.2025 Indian Oil Corporation issued an e-mail communicating that the issuance of no objection certificate shall W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 not be construed to mean that the said TTs are out of contract and, therefore, those TTs should be immediately placed at the site for transportation. The petitioner was further served with the notice through e-mail on 02.09.2025 that the said TTs for which said no objection was issued initially shall not be released and the said no objection is cancelled and stands null and void as it violates Clause 8.2.2.14 of Oil Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines (Version 5.0). The challenge is made to the said communication in the instant writ petition. 4. Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Clause-8.2.2.14 of the said Guidelines being the foundation for cancellation of no objection certificate is not applicable and, therefore, the said order of cancellation is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the said clause is relatable to an eventuality when the TTs which are attached to the contract are unauthorizedly used for any other contract which in fact has not been done in the instant case. It is further submitted that the authorities cannot take a plea which is inconsequential and not relatable to an eventuality as foundation for cancellation of the no objection certificate and placed reliance upon the judgment of the W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 5 of 11 apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Officer, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation took a stand that since the petitioner has used the TTs attached to the contract, it attracts violation of the said guidelines and, therefore, there is no infirmity on the part of the authorities in rejecting the no objection certificate. It is further submitted that the petitioner initially asked for release of those TTs for the purpose of repair, but subsequently changed this stand to unauthorizedly use of those TTs in other contract and, there is no fetter on the part of the authorities in recalling the no objection certificate after noticing the change of the stand taken by the petitioner subsequently. 6. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and submissions so advanced, the seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the action of the authorities in cancelling the no objection certificate upon taking shelter under Clause 8.2.2.14 of the Guidelines is justified. It would be apposite and profitable to quote the said Clause, which runs thus: W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 Clause No. Type malpractice/ irregularity of Penalty against number of instances First Second Third 8.2.2.14 Unauthorized use of TT outside the contract TT shall be blacklisted On a bare reading of the said Clause, it is manifest that once the TTs are attached to a contract, any unauthorised use dehors the same may attract blacklisting of the transporter. Once the consequences are provided for a thing done, the authorities cannot take shelter for any other consequences not provided in the said guidelines. Both the parties have relied upon the said Clause and did not take plea whether such guidelines have any legal force and, therefore, we do not intend to go into the nuances of such aspect. 6.1 The facts adumbrated hereinbefore clearly stipulate that initially the said two TTs which were attached to the contract were sought to be released on the pretext of the repair to be effected, but subsequently, the no objection was sought for as the petitioner intended to attach those TTs in other tender floated for similar nature of work which was issued by the Corporation. The tenet of the correspondences exchanged between the parties are galore that the petitioner never intended to detach those TTs, but sought W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 permission to incorporate those TTs while participating into the contract and in the event he emerges successful bidder in the said contract, the situation for replacement with the higher capacity and the model shall be made. Mere participation in the tender cannot be construed as unauthorized use of the TTs outside the contract for such eventualities being contingent to the finalization of the other tender in the event the petitioner emerged successful bidder therein. 6.2 We are conscious of the inconvenience and/or impediment which the Corporation would face if the TTs are withdrawn as it would affect the seamless transportation of the oil from the depot to the destination. The reason for declaration of the TTs at the time of participating into the tender is laudable that the transporter will not use such TTs in any other contract. Apart from the same, it also ensures that once the TTs are attached to the contract, it will facilitate the other procedural aspects with an intent to avoid any unauthorised transportation of the goods by the transporter. The correspondences reveal that no objection was issued for participation in that tender, which cannot be construed that the same will be unauthorizedly used outside the contract. W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 6.3 The word „unauthorized‟ in common parlance means anything done without the authority and once the same is used in conjunction with the word „used‟, it leads to an inference that anything done for implementation of something without any authority given actually or impliedly. 6.4 Mere intention to use the TTs by reflecting the same in other tender at the stage of its participation for which the no objection was given cannot be said that the said TTs have been unauthorizedly used as the situation for its use has not arisen. The said clause can only be activated in the event the petitioner emerges successful in the other contract and using the said TTs therein without any formal authority or the permission granted by the existing contracting parties. We, thus, have no hesitation that shelter under Clause 8.2.2.14 is completely misplaced and the action taken thereupon is not justifiable nor can be sustained. 6.5 We are conscious of the somewhat settled proposition of law that the Courts should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the decision of the authority within the four corners of the terms and conditions embodied in the contract, but if the parties have misinterpreted any of the clauses, which do not invite any W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 ambiguity in interpreting the same, the Court may interfere and quash the decision taken in violation thereof. The decision of the contracting authorities is tested not only on the intention to be gathered from the expressed words used in the contract, but also on the reasonability and, therefore, such decision must withstand on the test of reasonability. Though the conditions incorporated in the contract are to disclose the registration number of the TTs at the time of participation in the tender process with full disclosure of its capacity, but the moment the transporter offers the TTs of higher capacity and intended to replace the same with the recent model, we do not find any justification in the stand of the Corporation in taking shelter under the said Clause. What can be reasonably gathered from the mandate of disclosing the registration number of the TTs and the capacity to carry the goods is to ensure the uninterrupted and continuous transportation of the goods and if the old TTs are replaced by new model of higher capacity, there is no justification in denying such permission. An impression is created in us that the Corporation does not intend the transporter to transport the goods of another company dealing in the said goods and such restriction cannot be said to be reasonable. W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 7. We, thus, set aside the letter cancelling the no objection certificate issued earlier and accordingly, all the consequential steps taken thereupon are also quashed and set aside. 8. The writ petition is thus disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Arun Mishra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:39:14 W.P.(C) No. 25005 of 2025 Page 11 of 11