- (1.) HEARD Mr. Muskan Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bharat Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. For the orders proposed to be passed notice need not be issued to the other respondents.
(2.) THAT facts, in short, necessary for the present adjudication are that the Oil India Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'OIL') issued a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter to be referred as 'NIT') on 'one man two vehicle' basis for hiring services of different categories of vehicles as mentioned therein on the Letter of Intent (hereinafter to be referred as 'LOI') at offered rates for four years for operations in Rajasthan and any other surrounding states / areas of its activities. The NIT mentioned that the fixed charge amongst other charges included vehicles for 24 hours with services of drivers for 12 hours everyday. Driver's monthly wages of Rs.7020/ was inbuilt in such fixed charge including overtime payable to him or them beyond the period of 8 hours upto 12 hours everyday. It was further mentioned that the contracts on the basis of 'one man two vehicle' would be awarded to the successful parties as per priority of the draw of lots against actual requirement of the OIL and the contract would be as per offered rate as per other terms and conditions of the tender. In terms of clause (7) Oil India Limited reserved the right to reject any / all application/bids without assigning any reason whatsoever.
(3.) THE respondent offered his bid in response to the NIT of category 'B'. On 29.9.2011 when the tenders of all contractors were opened, the respondent was selected and placed at Sr. No.1. However, no LOI was issued to him and on making enquiries, he was informed on 19.7.2012 that the entire process had been cancelled and his bid security was offered to be returned. Thereafter, a fresh process was initiated by the OIL. Being aggrieved the respondent approached this Court challenging the impugned actions.;