Karnataka High Court
Blackbox Gps Technology Opc Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 13.06.2024
Pronounced on : 03.09.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8260 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
BLACKBOX GPS TECHNOLOGY OPC PRIVATE LIMITED
UNIT NO.E5D, 5TH FLOOR, TOWER B
GODREJ ETERNIA, PLOT NO.70,
INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-1
CHANDIGARH - 160 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
IT'S SOLE DIRECTOR
MR.RAJESH VAIDYA
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.K.NANDA KUMAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
2
NO.153, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD GATE
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
TTMC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(ADMINISTRATION)
O/O TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-1 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE NOTICE OF RULE NISI CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY REJECTION OF PETITIONER'S BID SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED AS BEING ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY; QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6.3.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) OF REJECTION OF THE BID OF THE PETITIONER; DIRECTING THE R2 TO INCLUDE THE PETITIONER IN THE LIST OF EMPANELLED MANUFACTURERS UNDER THE SECOND CALL.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 06-03-2024 by which the bid of the petitioner comes to be rejected by the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard Sri C. K. Nandakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be a company specialized in GPS based vehicle tracking devices and holds the position as a pioneer in vehicle tracking system. The 2nd respondent/Department of Transport and Road Safety of the State of Karnataka is entrusted with road transport related functions by notifying a scheme of installation of vehicle tracking devices under the Nirbhaya framework by calling for empanelment of manufacturers. The empanelment was for the purpose of installation of location tracking 4 devices as per AIS 140 specification. The petitioner participated in the first call of empanelment on 09-02-2023 for the registration of AIS 140 certified vehicle location tracking devices. The petitioner emerges successful and is empanelled. After the empanelment comes the participation in the bids adhering to certain certified eligibility criteria. The petitioner, as observed hereinabove, participated in the first call for empanelment and on certain clarifications and alleged shortcomings, the petitioner's empanelment was successful. The petitioner, after getting empanelled, is said to have committed into significant financial resources to distribute 1000 VLT devices to one of its authorized dealers to immediately start the business. The petitioner also is said to have increased its employee base in the State of Karnataka and set up an office for the smooth running of its business after the aforesaid successful empanelment. A purchase order was issued by AV Solutions on the petitioner for supply of 5000 VLT devices.
4. When things stood thus comes an e-mail from the 2nd respondent that petitioner's empanelment is recalled. The reason stated was evaluation process. The 2nd respondent through the said 5 communication unilaterally terminates the first call of empanelment. The reason, as observed, was evaluation process. This happens on 17-01-2024. The very next day i.e., on 18-01-2024 a fresh call for empanelment of VLT devices comes about. It is the averment in the petition that there is no difference between the first call and the second call qua eligibility criteria. The petitioner then submitted an application on 25-01-2024 to its banker to renew the fixed deposit receipt previously submitted by it, pursuant to the first call, so as to make it compliant with the second call within the stipulated timeline. The petitioner is said to have duly submitted its bid for the second call including all requisite documents and performance guarantee. The application that it had made to the Banker seeking renewal was appended to a covering letter to the 2nd respondent. The application submitted on the second call was analyzed. The fixed deposit receipt provided by the petitioner which had a maturity date up to 23-02-2028 was subject to auto renewal extending its validity up to 23-02-2029.
5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid renewal being submitted by the petitioner, the bid of the petitioner comes to be rejected. No 6 reasons were assigned. A communication in this regard was addressed to the petitioner on 06-03-2024. The petitioner sought to enquire the reasons for rejection of the bid. No response came about and therefore, the petitioner holding that it had invested more than `35/- lakhs on the first call, is approaching this Court in the subject petition, shouting arbitrariness on the part of the 2nd respondent in rejecting empanelment of the petitioner on the second call, on trivial reasons.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri C.K.Nandakumar representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that the rejection of the petitioner's bid in the second call, notwithstanding the fact that its empanelment was successful in the first call, is arbitrary. There was no difference between the first call and the second call. The only reason that was made known to the petitioner was that, the effective date of the fixed deposit receipt had commenced from 23-02-2023 which was pursuant to the first call and the fixed deposit receipt was valid only for four years as on the date of its issuance. The conditions in the second call stipulated 5 years validity. The learned senior counsel submits that in terms of 7 the clause of empanelment notification the auto-renewal of one year came about and thereby it was valid up to 5 years i.e., up to 23-02-2029.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that, as per the tender document a performance guarantee in the form of bank guarantee or demand draft for `25/- lakhs was to be furnished by the manufacturer for the period of empanelment issued by a Nationalized Bank only. The period of empanelment was 5 years. The fixed deposit receipt issued was valid up to 23-02-2028. The empanelment notification was on 24-01-2024. Therefore, it ought to have been up to 2029. Above this, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against rejection of its empanelment under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999.
8
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The subject petition was finally heard and disposed of by an order dated 21-03-2024 on the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents/State that if a fresh fixed deposit receipt would be produced, empanelment could be considered. The matter was moved again on the score that by the time the order was passed, the last date for empanelment was over and the matter had to be considered on its merits. By consent of both parties, the earlier order was recalled and the matter was reheard.
10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing GPS based vehicle tracking devices and is said to be in the domain for the last nine years. The issue in the lis would commence from empanelment notification issued by the 2nd respondent seeking to empanel eligible persons on expression of their interest for taking the tender 9 process further. The Government of Karnataka in the Department of Transport issues a notification calling for expression of interest for empanelment of manufacturers for supply of AIS 140 certified vehicle location tracking devices with emergency button. The petitioner participates in the empanelment process, emerges successful and is empanelled. As necessary under the clauses of empanelment, the petitioner furnished a fixed deposit receipt of Punjab and Sind Bank which was dated 23-02-2023 and had a validity of five years and the maturity date being 23-02-2028. This was strictly in consonance with the conditions of empanelment that was made. The petitioner emerges successful in the empanelment process and in the light of this empanelment the petitioner takes certain steps towards placing purchase orders to the device for installation, though no formal tender notice was issued.
11. After the empanelment of the petitioner, a communication is made by the 2nd respondent on 17-01-2024, recalling the empanelment process itself. I deem it appropriate to notice recalling of the first call of empanelment. The communication dated 17-01-2024 reads as follows:
10
"Pre-Qualification Tender has been recalled from TD Department.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 05:46 PM GMT+5:30 Dear Supplier/Contractor, The following Tender Number:CT/RGN1/PR848/22-23 Has Been Recalled for the Following Reason: Under Evaluation and your bid got rejected because tender has been recalled.
eProcurement Cell www.eproc.karnataka.gov.in.
NOTE: This mail box is not monitored, hence please do not respond to this mail id. In case of any issues/queries please contact [email protected]; +91 80 46010000 +91 80 68948777".
What is indicative in the aforesaid communication is that the petitioner's bid is rejected for empanelment; the reason being tender recalled. No other reason was forthcoming. The very next day comes the second call of empanelment. Certain clauses of second call of empanelment are germane to be noticed. They read as follows:
"S.No. Particulars Details
1 Name of Department Transport Department, Government
of Karnataka
... .... ....
11
4 Name of Empanelment Empanelment of Manufacturers for
AIS 140 Certified Vehicle Location
Tracking (VLT) Devices with
Emergency Buttons for Specified
Vehicles, in Karnataka 2nd Call.
5 Date of
Commencement of
Download of From 18.01.2024
Empanelment
Document
6 Date and Time of Pre- Date: 24.01.2024
Bid Meeting Time: at 12:00 PM
7 Last Date and Time for Date:02.02.2024
uploading of proposals Time: up to 5:30PM
Empanelment
Document in e-
Procurement portal
8 Date and Time of Date:03.02.2024
Online Opening of Bids
9 Date and Time of
Submission of Original
Demand Draft and
Date:02.02.2024
Bank Guarantee / Fixed
Time: upto 05:30PM"
Deposit Receipt leaned
to Transport
Department, GoK
The last date for uploading of documents was 02-02-2024 and opening of bids was on 03-02-2024. The clauses that are germane to be noticed are clauses 6 and 7, relevant portion of which read as follows:
"6. Submission of Empanelment Documents The response prepared by the Manufacturer shall comprise the following minimum required documentation 12 which must be uploaded in the e-procurement portal as follows:
6.1. Copy of Device Registration fee in the form of a Demand Draft for INR 15,000/- (Indian National Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) at the time of submission of bid. The Original Demand Draft should be submitted in the Office of the Commissioner on or before the date and time specified in the Empanelment Schedule.
6.2. Copy of Performance Guarantee in the form of Bank Guarantee / Demand Draft / Fixed Deposited Receipt Leaned to Transport Department, GoK for INR 25,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Twenty-
Five Lakhs Only) at the time of submission of bid. The original Bank Guarantee / Demand Draft / Fixed Deposited Receipt Leaned to Transport Department, GoK should be submitted in the Office of the Commissioner on or before the date and time specified in the Empanelment Schedule.
6.3. Documentary evidence supporting the eligibility criteria as per Section 3 of this Empanelment.
6.4. Self-Attested Copy of GST Registration Certificates issued by the concerned authorities is to be uploaded.."
.... .... ....
7. Evaluation of Applications 7.1. The Transport Department shall verify and confirm the receipt of Device Registration Fee, as well as Performance Guarantee in the form of Bank Guarantee ("PBG")/Demand Draft ("DD") / Fixed Deposit Receipt ("FDR") for all Manufacturers who have uploaded the copy of the PBG/DD/FDR as part of their applications on the e-procurement portal.
7.2 The Transport Department shall evaluate and determine whether each Bid Response of the Manufacturer: 13
7.2.1. Meets the evaluation criteria as per Section 3 of the Empanelment Document for them to qualified and become eligible to complete the empanelment process for testing of VLT devices for compliance of specifications.
7.2.2 The Transport Department reserves the right to only verify the statements, information and documents submitted by the Manufacturer in the e-procurement portal as part of their Bid response.
7.2.3. If a Bid response is not substantially complete, it shall be out rightly rejected by the Transport Department.
7.3. No Applicant shall contact the Authority on any matter related to this Empanelment, from the time of application opening to the time till the manufacturers are empaneled.
If the applicant wishes to bring any additional information to the notice of authority they should do so in writing via e-mail only.
74. After the evaluation under this Empanelment Process, the decision of the Transport Department shall be final and binding. The Transport Department shall not provide any clarification and/or reasons for rejection of manufacturers if they do not meet the eligibility criteria.
7.5. The selected manufacturers and their approved models will be published on Transport Department website or as desired.
7.6. Transport Department may conduct site inspections and validate the facilities declared by the manufacturers where the VLT devices are being manufactured and/or distributed under this Empanelment from time to time."
(Emphasis added) 14 Clause 6.2 mandates that a copy of performance guarantee in the form of bank guarantee/demand draft/fixed deposit receipt for `25/- lakhs should be made at the time of submission of the bid, which should be valid throughout the period of empanelment and the empanelment was for a period of five years.
12. What the petitioner would do while submitting its bid pursuant to second call is that, it would not take a fresh receipt of fixed deposit or any fresh performance bank guarantee. It appends the same fixed deposit receipt that it had submitted during the first call. The said deposit receipt was valid for a period of four years. It was not for a period of five years, if the date is taken from the date it submitted to the bid for empanelment on 25-01-2024. The fixed deposit receipt would mature admittedly on 23-02-2028. Therefore, it was valid only for a period of four years from the date of submission of bid for the second call. The reason for rejection is that its performance bank guarantee did not have the maturity of five years. The petitioner then rushes to the Bank and gets an auto-renewal mandate for a period of one year. Then the petitioner seeks to submit a representation that its bid should be accepted in 15 the light of the auto-renewal. Nonetheless it comes to be rejected. The rejection is called in question in the subject petition.
13. The issue is not the cancellation of the first call, as the petitioner after the first call was recalled has participated in the second call. Therefore, challenge to the first call after having participated in the second call would not be maintainable. The submission to that effect would not be entertainable. Therefore, the issue revolves around the second call. The petitioner has fulfilled all the nuisances of empanelment pursuant to second call, except submission of performance bank guarantee for a valid period. Therefore, the fault does not lie with the respondent or the respondent cannot be hauled up for any arbitrary action. It is the petitioner who submits the same fixed deposit receipt that was appended to the first call empanelment application is to be blamed. Since the validity was to be for five years, the petitioner ought to have been diligent in submitting the document of performance guarantee, which would be valid for five years. 16
14. By the time the subject petition was disposed of on the first occasion, the last date for empanelment was over. The same situation continues today. The examination is whether this Court would enter into conditions of contract tinkering and direct acceptance of the bid of the petitioner. The answer would be an unequivocal and emphatic 'no'. If the petitioner had submitted five years maturity performance guarantee, it would not have resulted in rejection of its bid. Even the auto-renewal for the performance guarantee of the petitioner reaches the 2nd respondent after the last date for submission of bid. It reached the respondents on 17-02-2024 and the last date for submission of the bid was 02-02-2024. Therefore, the rejection, notwithstanding plethora of correspondences between the petitioner and the respondents, would not lead to entertainment of the contention that the action is arbitrary. It is a settled principle of law that this Court would not enter into the conditions of contract unless those conditions are palpably or demonstrably arbitrary. So goes with the action of the respondents.
17
15. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TATA MOTORS LIMITED v. BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
49. It is not in dispute that the first and the foremost requirement of the Tender was the prescribed operating range of the single decker buses which would operate for around and average of 200 Kms in a single charge in "actual conditions"
with 80% SoC without any interruption. Then materials on record would indicate that the TATA Motors in its bid deviated from this requirement and had informed BEST that it could carry the operating range in the "standard test conditions" which was not in accordance with the Tender conditions. The High Court has rightly observed in its impugned judgment that the bid of the TATA Motors failed to comply with the said clause. TATA Motors deviated from the material and the essential term of the Tender. It may not be out of place to state at this stage that it is only TATA Motors who deviated from the condition referred to above. However, we are of the view that the High Court having once declared TATA Motors as "non-responsive" and having stood disqualified from the Tender process should not have entered into the fray of investigating into the decision of BEST to declare EVEY as the eligible bidder. We are saying so because the High Court was not exercising its writ jurisdiction in public interest. The High Court looked into a petition filed by a party trying to assert its own rights. As held by this Court in Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), that grant of judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria is something which could be termed as misplaced. In Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), this Court observed as under:1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 18 "27. In the present case, however, the relaxation was permissible under the terms of the tender. The relaxation which the Board has granted to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. is on valid principles looking to the expertise of the tenderer and his past experience although it does not exactly tally with the prescribed criteria. What is more relevant, M/s. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. who have challenged this award of tender themselves do not fulfil the requisite criteria. They do not possess the prescribed experience qualification. Therefore, any judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced.
Even if the criteria can be relaxed both for M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. and M/s. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., it is clear that the offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. is lower and it is on this ground that the Board has accepted the offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. We fail to see how the award of tender can be stayed at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria itself and whose offer is higher than the offer which has been accepted. It is also obvious that by stopping the performance of the contract so awarded, there is a major detriment to the public because the construction of two thermal power units, each of 210 MW, is held up on account of this dispute. Shortages of power have become notorious. They also seriously affect industrial development and the resulting job opportunities for a large number of people. In the present case, there is no overwhelming public interest in stopping the project. There is no allegation whatsoever of any mala fides or collateral reasons for granting the contract to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. We take notice of the fact that Annexure Y was originally required to be submitted by the "Successful Bidder"
after the evaluation of the bid and the same did not figure in the list of documents and annexures to be included in the technical submissions, as provided under Clause 5.1.1 of Schedule II of the Tender. Further the format provided for Annexure Y in the Tender documents in its heading states that the "Successful Bidders shall upload a Letter of Undertaking on their letter head as below". Therefore, we are of the view that the restriction on revision of documents under Clause 16 of Schedule I, which states, "No addition/correction, submission of documents will be allowed after opening of technical bid," is only limited to the 19 documents necessary to be included in the technical bid and would not be applicable to any such document which does not form a part of the technical bid."
The Apex Court holds that tenderers who challenge the tender process but do not themselves fulfill the requisite criteria prescribed in the tender document cannot be granted any relief.
16. A Division Bench of the High Court Delhi, while answering a faulty EMD or no EMD furnished by a tenderer in terms of the tender document, held that the tenderer who was at fault in himself, cannot challenge the tender process. The Division Bench in the case of M/s. S.B. TRANSPORT COMPANY v. CONTAINER CORPORAITON OF INDIA2 holds as follows:
".... .... ....
27. With regard to the decision of this court in Pes Installations Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Ms. Acharya submitted that that was also a case where the facts were entirely different from the present case. In that case what had happened was that the bid submission date was being changed from time to time as a result of which the petitioner therein had to alter the validity dates of the bank guarantee which was to be submitted in lieu of the EMD. After the 9th change in the bid submission date, the petitioner therein had furnished the bank guarantee whose validity was short by 7 days. It was not a case where no EMD had been furnished at all and in any event in that case immediately after submission of the EMD which was short by 7 2 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11919 20 days, the said error was immediately rectified even prior to the scrutiny, evaluation and consideration of the bid of the various bidders. It is in those circumstance and, particularly, in view of clause 28 of the tender conditions therein, that the Division Bench held that the deviation was not a material deviation of an essential condition. It was submitted that in the present case the requirement of furnishing the EMD was an essential condition which had not been complied with by T.N. Singh and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the cancellation by CONCOR.
28. Having considered the facts of the case and the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the requirement of submitting the EMD was an essential condition of the tender. This is clearly discernible from the mandatory language used in the Instruction to Tenderers as also in the tender conditions. We have already pointed out clause 5 of Chapter 1 of the tender conditions which clearly stipulated that if at any stage during the evaluation of the technical bid, the EMD was found to be invalid, the respective bidder's bid would be summarily rejected. Furthermore, in clause 2.3 of Chapter 2 of the tender conditions it was categorically provided that documents submitted without EMD 'will be summarily rejected'. Clause 7 of Chapter 1 of the tender conditions also stipulates that if the EMD is found invalid at any stage during the evaluation of the e-bid, the respective bidder's bid would be summarily rejected. All these stipulations have been provided without any relaxation or any other condition which would enable us to take a view that the requirement of furnishing the EMD was not an essential condition of the tender. Therefore, this much is clear that the requirement of furnishing the EMD was an essential condition of the tender. It is also an admitted position that T.N. Singh had not furnished the EMD on the ground that it had an MSME registration. We have also noted the submission made by the learned counsel for CONCOR that this was an online bidding process in which the bidder was specifically required to indicate as to whether it was exempt as a micro or small enterprise or whether it was applying under the general category. T.N. Singh had exercised the option indicating that it was bidding as a micro/small enterprise. Admittedly, T.N. Singh was neither. Therefore, T.N. Singh was required to submit the earnest money deposit which it failed to do. In our view since the requirement of earnest money deposit was an 21 essential condition and T.N. Singh had not complied with the same, he was not eligible to proceed to the next page, that is, of consideration of pre-qualification bid and/or to the further stage of consideration of the financial bids. We agree with the submission made by Ms. Acharya that the decisions in G.J. Fernandez (supra), Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and Pes Installations Pvt. Ltd. (supra) were on entirely different sets of facts and circumstances. There is no dispute with the principles of law laid down in those decisions but the factual matrix of the present case is entirely distinct and different from those obtaining in the said cases. It is clear that there can be two types of conditions - essential and ancillary. If an ancillary condition is deviated from, then there may be scope for consideration of a particular bid. But if an essential condition which does not permitting any deviation, is not complied with, then the bid is to be rejected summarily and cannot be considered at all. The consequence of this discussion is that T.N. Singh was not entitled to proceed to the next stage beyond the consideration of the EMD and, therefore, there is no question of T.N. Singh being regarded as the L-1 bidder or the successful bidder and in that respect the decision of CONCOR in cancelling the Letter of Intent cannot be faulted.
29. This takes us to the consideration of writ petition filed on behalf of S.B. Transport Company. In view of our decision that T.N. Singh was ineligible and that the cancellation of the Letter of Intent by virtue of the letter dated 21.08.2015 was valid, the next point for consideration is what is to be done with regard to the subject tender. In this regard, we feel that the approach adopted by this court in Inderjit Mehta (supra) could very well be adopted in the present case also. Since T.N. Singh's bid was not to be considered at all, the tender process would have to be considered as if T.N. Singh had not participated in the same. That being the case, the bid of the S.B. Transport Company would become L-1. CONCOR would have to be treat S.B. Transport Company as L-1 and proceed with the tender process there from. We may also note that Ms. Maninder Acharya on instructions from Shamal Singh, Proprietor, S.B. Transport Company and who is present in court also stated that, so that there is no loss to the public exchequer, they are willing to match the quote made by T.N. Singh. That being the case CONCOR shall consider the bid of S.B. Transport Company as L- 1 at the reduced rate equivalent to that which had been offered 22 by T.N. Singh and to award the contract to S.B. Transport Company provided that they comply with all other conditions and formalities."
17. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove, the fault laid with the petitioner and not with the respondents. Therefore, there is no merit, warranting entertainment of the petition and granting the prayers that are sought.
18. In the result, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ