Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner, a proprietorship concern, in the writ petition filed before this Court seeking direction to the respondents to place its name in Price Bid of the tender issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('the Corporation') for awarding contract of transportation of LPG Cylinders from Indane Bottling Plant, Bikaner. The petitioner also questioned a communication dated 03.04.2012 issued by the respondents informing M/s. Shri Ram Roadlines, Jodhpur, a partnership firm, that it had been placed on the Holiday list and debarred from entering into any contract with the Corporation for a period of one year, effective from the date mentioned in the said communication. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent Corporation issued a notice inviting tender for awarding contract of transportation of Indane LPG Cylinders for the years 2012 -14 from Indane Bottling Plant, Bikaner. The petitioner submitted the tender and after verification of documents through credential bid, the price bid was opened on 09.04.2012. However, the petitioner's name did not figure in the list of successful tenderers, who were invited for negotiations. Assuming that after opening of the price bid, its name had not been included in the list of successful tenderers on account of the fact that the petitioner's proprietor was partner in the said partnership firm M/s. Shri Ram Roadlines, which had been put on Holiday list; the petitioner -appellant filed the writ petition leading to this appeal questioning its non -inclusion in the tender process. Besides this, the petitioner -appellant also challenged the aforesaid communication dated 03.04.2012 putting the said partnership firm on Holiday list and debarring it from entering into any contract with the Corporation for a period of one year.
(2.) A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation and it was, inter alia, submitted that the proprietor of the petitioner concern Mr. Hariram Bishnoi was having 50% share in the partnership firm M/s. Shri Ram Roadlines, which had been placed on Holiday list and as the proprietor of the petitioner concern was having major share in the said partnership firm, the petitioner was not entitled for consideration of its price bid for the award of contract pursuant to NIT issued. The communication putting the partnership firm M/s. Shri Ram Roadlines, Jodhpur on Holiday list was also justified. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, though observed that the petitioner, a proprietorship concern, cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order putting M/s. Shri Ram Roadlines on Holiday list, but went on to examine its validity and came to the conclusion that the order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the competent authority of the Corporation, putting the said partnership firm on Holiday list for a period of one year, cannot be faulted with. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the action of the Corporation in treating the petitioner, a proprietary concern, on Holiday, because of its proprietor being the Managing Partner of the Firm M/s. Shri Ram Roadlines, which has been placed on Holiday list, was in consonance with the Guidelines and did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge left it open for the petitioner to make the representation to the respondent Corporation for removal of the bar and consideration of its tender for award of contract in view of the fact that no financial loss had been caused to the Corporation and there was a shortage of trucks offered by the successful tenderers. Aggrieved, by the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ -petitioner has preferred this intra -court appeal.
(3.) SEEKING to question the order aforesaid passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge interpreting Clause 1.29.7.4 of Guidelines for Holiday list is against the express provision of the said Guidelines, inasmuch as, though the said Guidelines provide for implication on a proprietary concern being put on Holiday list, it does not provide for similar implication in case of a partnership firm being put on Holiday list and, as such, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant deserves acceptance.;