Ramendra Jain, J. - (1.) Vide Annexure P-1, respondent No.1, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) invited e-tenders under Two-Bid system from Tank Truck owners for award of contracts for road transportation of bulk petroleum products with effect from 01.02.2016 for a period of three years with option for extension up to further two years at its sole discretion. Closing date and time of the tender was 23.12.2015 at 11.00 AM and the same was to be opened on 24.12.2015 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner firm submitted its bid on 22.12.2015. The petitioner received an e-mail dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) directing it to approach the officers of respondent No.1 Company for verification of documents as per tender. The verification was to be completed by 31.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner received another e-mail dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) from the respondents, directing it to upload the relevant documents at the earliest, but not later than 16.07.2016. On the same very day, i.e. on 08.07.2016, the petitioner uploaded all the relevant documents. Accordingly, vide e-mail dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure P-6), the respondents admitted the bid of the petitioner after duly verifying the documents. Thereafter, the petitioner received another e-mail dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-9) from the respondents whereby again the documents were directed to be uploaded through e-mail, not later than 16.07.2016. The respondents also asked the petitioner firm to send one of its representative for verification of pre-qualification documents as per tender with the originals at Location Ambala Terminal within next three working days after 16.07.2016.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the similarly situated bidders were issued a letter through e-mail dated 19.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) asking them to give extension of bid validity for another 60 days i.e. upto 18.10.2016. However, the said communication was not sent to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide e-mail dated 19.08.2016, the petitioner uploaded the application dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure P-3) and the certificate dated 01.01.2016 (Annexure P-8) duly issued by the State Transport Authority, under the Haryana Carriage by Road Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2007'). In this way, the petitioner firm completed all the prerequisite conditions, but was shocked when it received e-mail dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-10) informing it regarding rejection of its tender during technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee for the reasons "Not meeting PQC". The petitioner firm had filed CWP No. 19010 of 2016 before this court challenging the said e-mail/order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-10), which was disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure P-11) directing the respondents to decide representation of the petitioner, if filed within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, within a period of next one week by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.09.2016 (Annexure P-12) to the respondents raising all the pleas. Accordingly, General Manager (Contract Cell), Northern Region, Indian Oil Corporation, New Delhi, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm on 29.09.2016, and vide order dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-14) rejected its representation without discussing the pleas raised by it.
(3.) Hence, by way of the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner firm has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid e-mail/order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-10) rejecting its tender for the reasons "not meeting PQC", and the order dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-14), rejecting its representation against the said e-mail/order. Further prayer has been made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the bid/tender of the petitioner, on the following grounds:- (i) All the pleas raised by the petitioner have neither been discussed nor any finding has been returned on the same; (ii) The bid of the petitioner firm could not have been ignored for the simple reason that it did not possess the required certificate of registration on 23.12.2015, i.e. the closing date of the tender, in view of the fact that the respondents themselves failed to adhere to their own schedule of the tender and sought extension of the same on 19.08.2016; (iii) The respondents cannot be permitted to reject the claim of the petitioner firm at such a belated stage, in view of the fact that its tender was opened on 08.07.2016 and was admitted as per email dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner also submitted its certificate dated 01.01.2016 fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the tender; (iv) The respondents have wide power of relaxation of certain terms and conditions of the tender, because in the similar situation, they had earlier relaxed the clause requiring certificate under the Act of 2007 in tender dated 04.08.2015.;