Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors. v. Arti Devi Dangi And Anr. S

Order

1. Leave granted. The sole question in the two appeals under consideration is whether the insistence by the appellant Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. on adherence to the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) Guidelines requiring maintenance of specific distance between the proposed retail outlet and the median of the road was correct in view of the fact that in the advertisement and the brochure there was no specific reference to the said guidelines and no specific mention was made that the same would have to be complied with by a tenderer. The respondent-writ petitioners in both the appeals have been held to be disqualified on the ground that they do not satisfy the requirement in question (i.e. distance) under the aforesaid guidelines.

2. To answer the question arising, it will be necessary to note herein the relevant part of the advertisement issued dealing with the above question.

“(a) For establishment of Kendra, the compulsory measurement of the plot should be 35 m × 35 m (apart from the PWD land) the proposed plot of land for KVK should not be on the National Highway/State Highway and should fulfil all the Rules and sub-rules of PWD and local legal necessities.”

3. The materials on record would go to show that the IRC Guidelines have been adopted by the State PWD of Madhya Pradesh. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the respondents ought to have verified all such requirements that the rules and sub-rules of PWD stipulate including the requirements spelt out under the IRC Guidelines.

4. On behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners it is urged that there being no specific reference to the guidelines in question the requirement of compliance therewith was not an essential condition of the tender. It is also urged that the rules and sub-rules of PWD referred to in the extract of the advertisement as above would naturally mean statutory rules and the IRC Guidelines do not partake the character of statutory rules.

5. From the proceedings of the selection which shows the manner in which the cases of the respondent-writ petitioners were considered, which proceedings are on the record of the case, it is clear and evident that even at the very initial stage of consideration of the cases of the respondents, it is the requirements spelt out under the IRC Guidelines that were taken into account to hold that the respondents do not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed by the tender conditions. The respondent-writ petitioner Arti Devi Dangi was found not to have satisfied the particular eligibility criteria as the land offered by her was situated at a distance of 26 m away from the intersection on the road whereas in the case of Mohan Singh Parmar the distance was found to be about 600 m. The IRC Guidelines stipulated that in urban areas where the station is to be located along the State/National Highways the distance should be 1000 m and in case of rural areas the distance should be 300 m.

6. Though an argument has been sought to be made on behalf of the respondent Mohan Singh Parmar that the location of the station for which he had tendered is in an urban area and a certificate in support of the said claim has been relied upon, we do not find the aforesaid stand to be substantiated by the certificate [issued by the Municipal Council, Pankhedi (Kalapipal) District Shajapur] which has been placed on record of the present appeal inasmuch as the same only indicates that the volume of traffic on the road (about 300 vehicles).

7. If the clauses in the advertisement required a tenderer to fulfil all requirements under the rules and sub-rules of PWD and if what was suggested/recommended by IRC has been adopted by the State PWD and the said norms are in the interest of public safety and would facilitate smooth movement of traffic, it will be difficult to hold that the rules and sub-rules of PWD contemplated in the advertisement do not embrace the IRC Guidelines either because there was no specific mention thereof in the tender documents or the same do not have a statutory flavour. We, therefore, hold that the fulfilment of the requirements spelt out by the IRC Guidelines relevant to the present cases to be a mandatory requirement of the tender conditions. Coupled with the above what we find is that the action of the appellant Corporation cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable inasmuch as a uniform standard has been applied to all the applicants and in the present two appeals in question no candidate has been found to be eligible upon application of the said uniform standard i.e. the IRC norms. The action of the appellant Corporation, therefore, not being in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable the power of judicial review vested in the High Court ought to have been exercised with due circumspection.

8. A perusal of the orders of the High Court indicates that the only basis on which the decision of the appellant Corporation has been faulted with is that the IRC Guidelines are not mandatory. We fail to see how such a view can be sustained keeping in mind the provisions of the advertisement quoted above; the purport and object of the said norms; the uniform application of the same to all the tenderers by the appellant Corporation and above all the requirements of public interest.

9. In view of the above conclusion reached, it is not necessary for us to consider the arguments advanced on the question of permissibility of deviations from the tender conditions on the touchstone of public interest or the issue of understanding the requirement of the IRC Guidelines as implied terms of the tender document.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the same and allow the appeals.