Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010262922025 2025:GAU-AS:16477 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6733/2025 MS MANAJYOTI BORA A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NABIN NAGAR, RGB ROAD, GUWAHATI, ASSAM HAVING ITS OFFICE ALSO AT C/O RABIRAM BORA, C/O PRANTIK BORA, SIBSAGAR, TALUKA-NAZIRA, DISTRICT- SIBSAGAR, ASSAM - 785640, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MRS VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD (IOC), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI -400051. 2:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REFINERY HEAD INDIAN OIL BHAVAN INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR - III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM - 781020. 3:THE TENDER INVITING AUTHORITY INDIAN OIL BHAVAN INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR -III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM - 781020 4:MR DEEPAK SINGH YADAV MGR (LPS OPS) INDIAN OIL BHAVAN INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Page No.# 2/8 INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR -III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781020 5:MANAGER (LPS OPS) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. INDIAN OIL BHAVAN INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTORIII NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM781020 6:CGM(LPG) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. INDIAN OIL BHAVAN INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR -III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM-78102 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Sarmah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate : Mr. R. Gohain, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 28.11.2025 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 3/8 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. Gohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not inclined to proceed in the instant writ petition against the Respondent No.4. He therefore submits that the name of the Respondent No.4 may be struck off. 3. Taking into account the above, the name of the Respondent No.4 is struck off and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 arrayed in the instant writ petition shall be re-numbered as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is directed to file a fresh Memo of Parties before the Registry of this Court during the course of the day in terms with the instant order and on the basis thereof, the Registry shall make necessary correction in the Cause Title as well as update the same in the CIS. 5. Taking into account the issue and the limited scope of the present proceedings in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court issues Rule returnable forthwith. 6. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is in the business Page No.# 4/8 of providing transportation of Bulk LPG. A Notice Inviting E-Tender was issued on 01.03.2025 under the Two Bid System for Bulk LPG transportation contract by road for the State of Assam and Meghalaya for a period of 5 years. The estimated truck requirement for the State of Assam and Meghalaya (equivalent to 7 MT capacity) was stated in the tender to be 400. The Petitioner has one LPG Bulk Tanker Vehicle which was manufactured in the year 2019. Pursuant to the Notice Inviting E-Tender, the Petitioner submitted its bid. It is the case of the Petitioner that while carrying out the technical evaluation, it was found that there was a difference between the Registered Laden Weight (RLW)/Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) and the Unladen Weight (ULW) in the Registration Certificate vis-à-vis the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization License. This aspect was pointed out to the Petitioner and thereupon, the Petitioner approached the concerned authority in the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization for rectification. 7. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the same was rectified on 10.10.2025 thereby the load carrying capacity was corrected in terms with the Registration Certificate. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in the meantime, neither the Letter of Acceptance was issued to the Petitioner nor any further steps were taken though the Petitioner’s technical bid was admitted and the Petitioner was also evaluated as L1 bidder along with various other bidders. The Petitioner submitted a representation on 19.09.2025 however the same was rejected by the concerned Respondent Authorities with the one line observations vide an email dated 03.10.2025. The said email reads as follows: Page No.# 5/8 “Truck did not qualified for LOA issuance.” 8. The Petitioner thereupon submitted another representation on 03.10.2025 itself seeking reasons as to why the Letter of Acceptance cannot be issued to the Petitioner. The Respondents however did not reply for which the Petitioner had issued a legal notice on 24.10.2025. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in spite of the legal notice, the Respondents have not disclosed the reasons for not issuing the Letter of Acceptance. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 9. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has placed before this Court certain instructions wherein it is mentioned that in terms with Clause I(3) of Chapter-2 of the Notice Inviting Tender, it is required that trucks quoted must have a valid Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization License as on the original closing date of the tender. The difference in the Registered Laden Weight and the Unladen Weight in the RC Book must not be less than the license capacity declared by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel submitted that though the organization i.e. Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization had subsequently corrected the license in terms with the Registration Certificate but as on the date on which the bid was submitted, the said license issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization Authorities was not in conformity with the Registration Certificate. 10. During the course of the hearing, this Court enquired with Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 6/8 Respondents as to why the Petitioner was asked to give an opportunity and after the Petitioner submitted the rectified Certificate why the Petitioner’s Technical Bid and Price Bid was admitted and evaluated respectively. This Court further enquired whether as per the requirements of the Notice Inviting E-Tender, have the Respondents been able to obtain the requisite LPG Trucks for which the Notice Inviting E-Tender was issued. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel upon being instructed by his assisting counsel submitted that the Respondent IOCL still requires more trucks in view of the fact that various Letter of Acceptance which were issued have been cancelled. 11. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the Petitioner during the course of the technical evaluation was informed about the discrepancy in carrying capacity stated in the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization License vis-à-vis the Registration Certificate. Thereupon, the Petitioner had approached the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization Authorities and the carrying capacity in the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization License was rectified in terms with the Registration Certificate. 12. The record further reveals that in the meantime the fact of correction was duly informed and thereupon the Petitioner’s technical bid was admitted and the price bid was also evaluated wherein the Petitioner was found to be L1 bidder along with various other bidders. 13. This Court also takes note of that the Petitioner had also submitted a Page No.# 7/8 representation on 19.09.2025 seeking reasons as to why the Petitioner has not been issued the Letter of Acceptance. The Respondent Authorities instead of providing reasons have replied that the Petitioner’s truck was not qualified for issuance of Letter of Acceptance. There were no reasons assigned why the Petitioner’s truck was not qualified after the rectification was carried out. It is apposite herein to observe that when contractual rights are absent, the State’s administrative discretion in rescinding or cancelling an offer is not unfettered. It remains subject to constitutional discipline i.e. the State’s action should not be arbitrary, unreasonable or actuated by mala fides. 14. It is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent Authorities being a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution ought to have provided due reasons more so when after the correction of the Petitioner’s PESO Licence, the Petitioner’s technical bid was admitted and the price bid was opened. The Respondent Authorities however in spite of the representation dated 03.10.2025 as well as the legal notice dated 24.10.2025 did not for reasons best known thought it prudent to inform the reasons behind the decision not to issue the Letter of Acceptance to the Petitioner. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances discussed and analyzed, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The reply given by the Manager, LPS dated 03.10.2025 being devoid of Page No.# 8/8 any reasons is interfered with. (ii) This Court directs the Respondent Authorities and more particularly the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Chief General Manager, LPG of the IOCL to consider the representation submitted by the Petitioner on 19.09.2025 afresh along with the legal notice dated 24.10.2025. The same shall be done within a period of 15 days from the date a certified copy of the present judgment is served upon the Respondent No.5. (iii) For the sake of clarity, this Court finds it relevant to observe that this Court had not entered into the aspect on merits as to whether the Respondents are required to issue the Letter of Acceptance to the Petitioner or not. It shall be within the wisdom of the Respondent Authorities to take such decision as per law. (iv) It is further observed and clarified that the exercise of jurisdiction by the present order is only on the aspect that the Respondents have acted unfairly and unreasonably in not informing the Petitioner the reasons behind their decision to not issue the Letter of Acceptance. (v) No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2025.12.02 16:24:50 +05'30'