Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Akram Indance A Proprietor Ship Firm vs The Chairman And Managing Director ... on 28 August, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763
1 WP-6500-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6500 of 2025
M/S AKRAM INDANE
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar
Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naveen Kumar Salunke - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 14/02/2025 passed by the Chief Regional Manager Retail, Jabalpur, Retail RO/ respondent No.4, whereby the acceptance letter issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.
2 . It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner firm is MSME registered under the MSME Department. The respondents are Government of India Enterprises, therefore fall under the definition of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are amenable to writ jurisdiction. Respondents have invited e-Tender No.24000150902-HD-07350 for transportation of bulk (POL) products for which they invited bid from the contractors. The scope of work, transportation of bulk white oil petroleum products like Spirit (MS)/ High-Speed Diesel (HSD)/ products JBL IRD to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 2 WP-6500-2025 locations within the State and outside the State. TTs facility locations was HPCL JBL IRD Shahpura Road, Bitoni, Jabalpur. Only bottom loading TT facility was available at the said location, meaning thereby that the trucks which are having bottom loading facilities wherein fuel to be filled from the bottom side of the truck will be permitted to participate in the tender process. However, there was a relaxation given that even the top loading trucks were permitted to participate. Even the companies/ firms having top loading trucks were permitted to participate subject to the condition that in case the contractor succeeds and tender is awarded to him, then the trucks offered having top loading facility will be converted into a bottom loading facility. Petitioner applied for granting contract for transportation of bulk POL products for 9 trucks. The bid was evaluated by the tender committee and the petitioner's firm was found eligible and subsequently tender was awarded by issuance of a letter of acceptance dated 16/12/2024 with respect to 3 trucks. Out of which, 2 trucks were having bottom loading facility and 1 truck was having a top loading facility. In pursuance to the letter of acceptance, petitioner submitted bank guarantee in terms of the tender document condition for execution of the agreement.
3 . It is argued that when the vehicles were physically verified on 27/01/2025, it was found that 2 vehicles were fit to be used for transportation and it was only after due verification the respondents have accepted the bid of the petitioner. It is his case that in terms and conditions of the tender/ contract document without the instructions of HPCL location In-charge, truck cannot be sent for fabrication. Therefore, petitioner was not in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 3 WP-6500-2025 position to send his third truck to the fabricator for converting into a bottom loading truck but the Authorities have not ignored the fitness of 2 vehicles given by the petitioner and have started raising objections by sending an email on 28/01/2025 and thereafter on 31/01/2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner firm that why they have not converted the third vehicle into a bottom loading facility truck. On 29/01/2025, respondent company has allotted unique ID and password which is used by every individual transporter separately for monitoring the transportation of the vehicle and its location. This is issued by every transporter for loading and downloading petroleum products. It is only after the said code is uploaded on the portal of the company, the work commences. The allotment of such code to the petitioner amounts to enforcement of the contract but despite of issuance of code to the petitioner, respondents have chosen not to engage the vehicle of the petitioner for transportation. The work of transportation was to commence from 31/03/2025. The petitioner replied to the emails sent by the Department on 01/02/2025 pointing out the fact that there was some technical hurdle in modifying this third vehicle into bottom loading vehicle as the vehicle was more than 12 years old and if the vehicle is modified from top loading to bottom loading, it will become very expensive and not economically feasible as the modification will require heavy expenses. There was an oral conversation between the petitioner and the respondent Department wherein petitioner firm through its representative has apprised the respondents about the difficulty which arose in conversion from top loading to bottom loading and at the said juncture, the petitioner has offered Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 4 WP-6500-2025 the respondent that he is ready to purchase a new vehicle with bottom loading facility in place of modifying the old truck and sought permission to replace the old truck with a new truck. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the relevant clause of the agreement/ contract document to show that the replacement can be done and is permissible. Despite of the condition mentioning the replacement of vehicle in the tender document, the Authorities have not permitted the petitioner to carry out the same. The application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of his old truck with a new truck was kept pending. The reminders were sent by the petitioner but of no consequence. Thereafter, petitioner received an email dated 11/02/2025 to get the modification of the truck done within 30 days.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is ready to replace the old truck with a new truck having a bottom loading facility which has not been considered by the Department and all of a sudden, the impugned communication is sent to the petitioner cancelling the letter of acceptance of the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
5 . On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the Authorities denying all the petition averments. It is contended that the Jabalpur IRD is a 100% bottom loading location and only tank trucks with bottom loading facility can be filed here for transportation of the petroleum products but despite of this, in order to provide opportunity at large to all the transporters, even those who are having a top loading tank trucks, they were allowed to participate in the tender process subject to the transporter's declaration that the transporter will convert a top loading tank truck to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 5 WP-6500-2025 bottom loading tank truck for which no permission from the Department is required. The petitioner was well aware of the said condition. In a meeting held on 20/08/2024, that was a pre-bid meeting which was held through video conferencing, it was clarified to the bidders that TTs in case selected have to be converted from top loading to bottom loading. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the same. The detailed induction procedure was shared with the petitioner vide email dated 31/12/2024 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the successful bidder to place the physically offered TTs on "As is" basis within 7 days for physical verification. The argument raised before this Court that the location In- charge was required to instruct regarding authorized fabricator to convert the transport TT is denied by the authorities on the ground that there is no such condition mentioned in the tender document. The petitioner was well aware of the fact that Jabalpur IRD being a 100% bottom loading location coupled with Clause 19.a, 19.C, 19.d, 19.i and Clause 45.i which clearly indicate that non-compliance of any of such conditions will have consequences to the extent of cancellation of LOA or the work order issued to the concerning. The petitioner being well aware of the same has himself chosen not to submit the bottom loading tank facility truck despite repeated communications made to him. It is further contended that the provision for replacement of the truck which has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the replacement of the vehicle can only be permitted in terms of relevant clause of the tender document. However, petitioner has not placed any document before the Authorities to show that that the offered TT is beyond economical Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 6 WP-6500-2025 repairs owing to accident or theft and the replacement shall be provided within 90 days. In absence of any such document, the replacement is not permissible. The Authorities were well within their jurisdiction to pass the order of cancellation of LOA. He has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner denying the averments of the return pointing out the fact that he is ready to submit a new truck in place of old truck and the said offer is legally permissible in terms of the contract document which is never disputed by the respondents. Therefore, the offer made by the petitioner for replacement of his old truck would have been accepted by the Authorities but the said request of the petitioner was kept pending and all of a sudden the letter of allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 . From the perusal of record, it is seen that the admitted position being issuance of NIT inviting applications for submission of bottom loading trucks for transportation of the petroleum products wherein petitioner along with others submitted the bid and after due verification by the evaluation committee, letter of acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioner on 16/12/2024 with respect to 3 trucks out of total 9 trucks offered by the petitioner. Out of 3 trucks, 2 trucks were having the facility of bottom loading. It is only one truck which was not having a facility of bottom loading. The details of aforesaid 3 trucks are as under:-
Owned/ Bottom
Registration Notional Capacity
Sr.No. attached/ loading/ Top
no. schedule in KL
Booking Slip loading
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 09-12-2025
10:19:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763
7 WP-6500-2025
1. MP20ZD8367 Attached Bottom loading 18-<25KL
2. MP15HA2548 Attached Bottom loading 18-<25KL
3. MP20HB4209 Owned Top loading 18-<25KL
9. There is a clause in the tender document that in case the bid of the contractor is accepted and he is having a top loading tank facility then he has to convert the same to the bottom loading facility truck but the successful tenderer has to execute an agreement within 15 days from the date of LOA/ work order and is required to physically place the tank truck at the location within 30 days from the issuance of LOA. However, additional time of 15 days can be granted for execution of the Agreement by the HPCL. The relevant clauses of the tender document are important and reproduced as under:-
"19. Execution of Agreement:-
a) Successful tenderer/s will be required, before undertaking the contract, to execute the Agreement, within 15 days of the date of issue of the LOA/work-
order and should physically place the Tank Truck at the location within 30 days from the issue of LOA /Work Order. HPCL may allow additional time of up to 15 days for Execution of Agreement In case of failure, the HPC will have the right to cancel the LOA, Date of HPCL email sent along with LOA copy to bidders will be considered as issue date of LOA.
c) Placement of Tank Trucks less than Number mentioned in LOA / Work Order shall not be permitted.
d) Tank trucks placed for induction shall meet with all the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender document. Any modifications required to be carried for complying with the tender conditions shall be carried out prior to placing the tank trucks.
e) Tank trucks completed in all respects shall be placed for induction. Not fulfilling any of the tender conditions shall be deemed as non-compliance of tender requirements and appropriate action as per terms of the tender shall be taken.
i) Failure to execute the agreement and/ or furnish required Performance security within days' time and/ or physical placement of Tank Trucks at the location within 30 days' time may render the tenderer liable for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 8 WP-6500-2025 action in line with Tender T&C/ Agreement /Transport Discipline Guidelines and termination of contract without prejudice to the rights of the Oil Company to recover the damages under Law."
10. From the perusal of aforesaid clauses of the tender document, it is apparently clear that once the LOA is issued to execute an agreement and is required to physically place the tank trucks as per the tender document at the location within 30 days, which is extendable for further period of 15 days for execution of an agreement of permitted by HPCL. Clause 19(c) clearly provides that the successful tenderer will not be permitted to place the less number of tank trucks as mentioned in the LOA. Clause 19(d) clearly provides that if any modification is required for complying with the tender conditions, then the same is required to be carried out prior to placing the tank trucks, meaning thereby that the entire exercise of converting a top loading tank truck to a bottom loading tank truck has to be carried out by the petitioner prior to placing the tank trucks on location i.e. within 30 days from the date of issuance of LOA. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was not aware of the terms and conditions of the tender document. There is no such condition in the entire tender document that could be pointed out regarding instructions to be issued by the location In-charge for sending the tank truck for modification to an authorized Fabricator. The petitioner himself was required to get his truck converted into a bottom loading vehicle in terms of the tender document which was not being done by him. Admittedly, LOA was issued in favor of the petitioner 16/12/2024 and within a period of 30 days from 16/12/2024, the petitioner was required to place his trucks having bottom loading facility on the Site location. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 9 WP-6500-2025 petitioner was also informed regarding the tender clauses vide e-mail dated 23/01/2025, wherein he was supposed to produce physical TT for induction within 30 days and in case of failure to do so, the same may lead to cancellation of LOA. The truck bearing registration No.MP-20-HB-4209 was presented for inspection on 27/01/2025 which was the last day for inspection of physical offered TTs after modification as per the tender document. The TT was inspected and it was observed that TT was having the fresh color scheme of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited which goes to show that the aforesaid truck was in contract with M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
11. As far as request for replacement of TT made by the petitioner is concerned, the condition for replacement of a vehicle is clear and cogent and the same reads as under:-
"Post LOA (Before induction)- In case of damage of offered TT beyond economical repairs, Accident or theft, Replacement shall be provided within 90 days fulfilling above mentioned criteria with duly supported documentary evidence e.g. OEM certification, Police FIR etc. (As applicable)."
12. From the perusal of aforesaid condition, it is clear that the request for replacement of the vehicle should be made Post LOA and prior to induction and is permissible only in case of damage of offered TT beyond economical repairs, accident or theft, but the same has to be duly supported by documentary evidence. The request for replacement of the vehicle of the petitioner was not supported by any of the documentary evidence as required. Petitioner has not provided any report from the approved fabricator Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 10 WP-6500-2025 with respect to damage to TT beyond economical repairs, accident or theft.
1 3 . In absence of any such documentary evidence, the request for replacement of the vehicle cannot be accepted merely on the statement made by the petitioner that it is not economically feasible to get the vehicle converted. Therefore the said argument advanced before this Court regarding replacement of the vehicle, in absence of any document in support of the same, is untenable and such relief regarding replacement cannot be accepted.
14. The scope of judicial review in the cases of tenders was recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 , wherein it has been held as under:-
"48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is dutybound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 11 WP-6500-2025 even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489)."
1 5 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 has held as under:-
"7. ............... The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 12 WP-6500-2025 great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene."
1 6 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2008) 16 SCC 215 while dealing with the scope of judicial review of the constitutional Courts, held that in matters of highly technical nature, a high degree of care, precision and strict adherence to requirements of bid is necessary. Decision making process of Government or its instrumentality should exclude remotest possibility of discrimination, arbitrariness and favoritism. It should be transparent, fair, bona fide and in public interest. However, the Supreme Court clearly held therein that it is not possible to rewrite entries in bid document and read into the bid document terms that did not exist therein, nor is it permissible to improve upon the bid originally made by a bidder. Power of judicial review can only be exercised when the decision making process is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably or lawfully could have taken such decision, but if it is bona fide and in public interest, Court will not interfere with the same in exercise of power of judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. Principles of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of such commercial transactions.
1 7 . In the case of Montecarlo Ltd. v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., reported in 2016 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 15 : (2016) 15 SCC 272 , the appellant participated in the tender process pursuant to the NIT Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 13 WP-6500-2025 issued by respondent and as the appellant did not meet with technical qualifications prescribed, his bid was treated non- responsive. The appellant approached the High Court challenging action of respondent, but the High Court declined to interfere. The Supreme Court held that judicial review of decision making process is permissible only if it suffers from arbitrariness or mala fides or procedure adopted is to favour one. But if decision is taken according to language of tender document or decision subserves purpose of tender, then Courts must exercise principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by Courts would be impermissible. Principles of interpretation of tender documents involving technical works and projects requiring special skills are different from interpretation of contractual instruments relating to other branches of law. It was held that the tender inviting authorities should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be free hand in exercising discretion. Tender inviting authorities have discretion to enter into contract under some special circumstances and there has to be judicial restraint in administrative action. The Courts do not have expertise to correct administrative decisions and if Courts are permitted to review such decisions then Courts are substituting their own view without there being necessary expertise, which may be fallible. If decision is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts would not interfere even if there is procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to tenderer.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 , delineated the scope of interference by the Constitutional Courts in the matter of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 14 WP-6500-2025 Government Contracts/Tenders by observing that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. There are however inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is always the guardian of the finances of the State and it is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government, but the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or rejecting a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation and the right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive process. The Supreme Court held that it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The power of judicial review is not an appeal from the decision and therefore, the Court cannot substitute its decision since the Court does not have the necessary expertise to review. Apart from the fact that the Court is hardly equipped to do so, it would not be desirable either. However, where the selection or rejection is arbitrary, certainly the Court would interfere. But it is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator.
19. The judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763 15 WP-6500-2025 of Air India Ltd. (supra), Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Montecarlo Ltd. (supra) and Tata Cellular (supra) were taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2021 (4) M.P.L.J. 428, wherein it has been held as under:-
"24. Moreover, in the fact situation obtaining in the present case, decision of the respondents treating the bid submitted by the petitioner as technically non- responsive can neither be said to be mala fide nor intended to favour someone. It cannot be termed so arbitrary or irrational which no responsible body of person acting under law could on available facts arrive at. It is trite that when power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. If as per conditions of the NIT, the bidder was required to have experience of having successfully (i) executed; (ii) completed; and (iii) commissioned, in this case, one similar work of aggregate cost not less than the amount equal to 50% of the value of the work in question during last five financial years, the bidder has to necessarily possess experience showing that he has not only executed and completed but also commissioned one complete work of that much value. It is settled proposition of law that the words used in the tender document as conditions of acceptability of technical bid have to be construed in the way the employer has used them while formulating such terms and conditions, therefore, the interpretation of the employer in that respect has to be accepted unless it is so obnoxious that it defies reason and logic and is not a possible interpretation on the language used in formulation of the conditions. Moreover, whether a particular condition is essential or not also is a decision to be taken by the employer. The tender inviting authorities have to be allowed greater play in the joints not only in formulating the terms and conditions of tender but also in interpreting them. No words in the tender documents can be treated as surplusage or superfluous or redundant. The decision of the employer Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63763
16 WP-6500-2025 has to be respected by the Court unless it is shown to be ex-facie arbitrary, outrageous, and highly unreasonable. If non-fulfillment of the mandatory conditions of eligibility conditions of the terms of the NIT results in the bid submitted by a particular bidder being rendered non-responsive, the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the employer by its own unless interpretation of such condition by the tender inviting authority suffers from mala fides or perversity."
2 0 . In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances are available. Petitioner was well aware of the terms and conditions of the tender documents. He was also aware of the fact that in case of non-fulfillment of any of the terms and conditions of the tender document, LOA issued in favour of the petitioner can be cancelled in view of the right reserved by the respondents.
21. If the aforesaid settled principles of law are applied to the facts and circumstance of the present case coupled with the conditions mentioned in the tender documents, this Court is of the view that no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
2 2 . The petition s a n s merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order dated 24/02/2025 directing the parties for maintaining status quo stands vacated.
23. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:19:03