R.A.SINGH,J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the respondent no.3 ( Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner's company and the six truck tankers have been blacklisted.
(2.) THE brief facts mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioner M/s Kesarwani Transport Company, Jaunpur carrying on the business with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for last 25 years since 1984-85 used to supply the truck tankers for transportation of oil products on fare as per the agreement. In Aug. 2008, the Indian Oil Company invited tenders for supply of truck tankers to transport the Oil products of Indian oil Corporation by issuing a brochure containing terms and conditions. The petitioner also submitted his tender in response to the above invitation, which was accepted by the respondent no.2 Indian Oil Corporation and letter of intent (work order) containing six truck tankers offered by the petitioner was issued in its favour on 17.11.2008 and the petitioner was asked to place the above truck tankers for physical verification and to execute an agreement within fifteen days from the date of issuance of letter of intent. Out of six truck tankers the petitioner could offer only five truck tankers for work order. Both the parties entered into an agreement as directed in the letter. The truck tanker No. U.P. 70G. 9955 being already attached with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. till the end of December 2008 could not be offered for work, hence the owner of the said truck tanker requested to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to exchange the same with the truck tanker No. U.P. 72E 9162 through Maa Vaishno Oil Carrier on 11.12.2008 as the said truck tanker No. U.P. 70 G. 9955 was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Maa Vaishno Oil Carrier, but to no avail. On 17.3.2009, the Chief Terminal Manager respondent no.3 issued letter to the petitioner to this effect that the company committed breach of contract as per the Clause 5.1 and 5.3 in view of the fact that the above truck tanker was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporatin Ltd. and thus it would be treated a malpractice as per the Clause 8.1(d)and 8.1(e) of the Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines. The petitioner was also asked through the above letter to show cause within three days as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner as per the provisions of the contract agreement and Industry transport Discipline Guidelines. The petitioner submitted the reply to the above notice on 29.3.2009 explaining the reasons for not making the truck tanker no. U.P. 70 G. 9955 available on the date since the above truck tanker was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mugalsarai by December 2008. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. extended the period unilaterally and ultimately it was made available to the petitioner only in Ist week of Feb. 2009 and then it was attached with the respondent no.2 for work and thus there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner further made another representation on 6.4.2009 about the late attachment of the above truck tanker, but the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order on 16.4.2009 blacklisting the petitioner and its above six truck tankers. The petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging the above order. The respondent no.2 to 4 have alleged in the counter affidavit that on 15.12.2008, a bulk petroleum products Road Transport Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.2 and the said agreement was to operate since 1.1.2009 as the work order was already issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.11.2008. The petitioner did not report for transportation work on 1.1.2009 and then the respondent no.2 issued a notice dated 3.1.2009 to the petitioner to explain the reasons within three days regarding non reporting for transportation work. The respondent no.2 came to know from the reliable sources that the said vehicle was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under the contract and the Indian Oil Corporation, respondent no.2 enquired from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which replied informing that the said vehicle was engaged with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd under an agreement during that period upto 13.1.2009. The respondents then sent final notice on 17.3.2009 about non reporting of the said truck which was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and thus the petitioner committed breach of the contract as per the clause 5.1 and 5.3 of the agreement. The act of the petitioner amounts to malpractice as per the clause 8.1.d and 8.1. e. of the agreement. The matter was referred to Deputy General Manager (O) U.P. Lucknow and the committee found the case of the petitioner as case of gross violation of agreement and took decision to blacklist all the vehicles of the petitioner for which an agreement was entered into and the affidavits were submitted by the owner of the above vehicles as per the clause 8.3 of the agreement. The petitioner itself admitted that the truck tanker no. U.P. 70 G 9955 was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd under the contract till end of December 2008 and the said truck tanker was working with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation till 13.1.2009. Thus the above truck tankers have been rightly blacklisted for breach of terms of agreement of the parties while their owners have filed wrong affidavits and thus this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) WE have heard Shri M.D. Singh Sekhar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 2,3 and 4 and Shri Vivek Chand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 on the whole matter at length. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. A perusal of the record goes to show that factual position as mentioned in the writ petition have been admitted on behalf of the respondents in their counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the following six truck tankers were engaged with the respondent no.2 vide agreement dated 15.12.2008 read with letter of intent dated 17.11.2008: 1. U.P. 70-L 9561 12KL 2.U.P.O-L 9882 12KL 3.U.P.78-T 0507 12KL 4.U.P.70-L 9955 12KL 5.U.P.70-L 9557 12KL 6.U.P.70-L 8238 12KL ;