Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03/03/2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and WMP(MD)No.5442 of 2025 J.J.J.Transport, Thuraiyur, Gangaikondan, Tirunelveli - 627 352. Represented by the Proprietor, T.Joseph ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The G.M.Category Management,
(Logistics) C.P.O.(Mktg), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 9th Floor, Marathon Futurex Building -A Wing, Mafathlal Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Depot Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli IRD, B.G.Goods Shed Road, Thatchanallur, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER:-Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Lr.No. Nil dated 06.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to award Letter Of Acceptance for the Tank Trucks belonging to the petitioner as per the Tender flouted in Tender No. 2400015491-HD-0950(RFQ No.5100015491) dated 28.08.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.R.J.Karthick
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication issued by the first respondent, whereby the documents submitted by the petitioner for transportation of Bulk MS/HSD ex-
Tirunelveli IRD were rejected. The respondent Corporation had floated a tender for transportation of Bulk MS/HSD ex-Tirunelveli IRD. As per the tender conditions, bidders were required to provide one tank truck of 18 KL to 25 KL capacity. The petitioner submitted its bid under the MSME/General category, offering to provide 10 tank trucks. Upon opening of the technical bids, it was found that M/s. Valvilori Transport Service (MSME-SC/ST) was more eligible, and accordingly, the petitioner’s technical bid came to be rejected.
2. Mr. R.R. Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that M/s. Valvilori Transport Service had participated in the tender process under the MSME-SC/ST category, whereas the petitioner had applied under the MSME/General category. However, the work order has been awarded to M/s. Valvilori Transport Service, which, according to the petitioner, was not eligible to be considered under the MSME/General category.
3. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation submitted that M/s. Valvilori Transport Service had applied under both MSE/General as well as MSE-SC/ST categories, and having been found more eligible than the petitioner, the contract was awarded to it. It was further submitted that, in the absence of any illegality or infirmity, the impugned communication does not warrant interference.
4. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner participated under the
MSE/General category and offered 10 tank trucks. Out of the said offer, one truck did not satisfy the requirements of the technical bid, and the remaining nine were considered for financial evaluation. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that M/s. Valvilori Transport Service offered 11 owned tank trucks in
the 12 KL to less than 18 KL capacity range, and the average age of the tank trucks offered by it was 383 days. In contrast, the petitioner offered nine tank trucks, of which eight were owned and the overall average age of the tank trucks offered by the petitioner was 2463 days.
6. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder disputing the
averments made in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that M/s. Valvilori Transport Service was more eligible and remains uncontroverted.
7. It is seen that the contract has been awarded to M/s.
Valvilori Transport Service under both the MSE/General and MSE-SC/ST categories. There is no prohibition in considering a tenderer belonging to the SC/ST category under the General category as well, provided such a tenderer satisfies the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that M/s. Valvilori Transport Service cannot be considered under the MSME/General category is devoid of merit. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the work order issued in favour of M/s. Valvilori Transport Service.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned communication issued by the first respondent does not suffer from any arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference. 9.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.03.2026 CM TO
1. The G.M.Category Management,
(Logistics) C.P.O.(Mktg), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 9th Floor, Marathon Futurex Building -A Wing, Mafathlal Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Depot Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli IRD, B.G.Goods Shed Road, Thatchanallur, Tirunelveli. HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR,J CM and WMP(MD)No.5442 of 2025 Date : 03/03/2026