AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No.3.
The case of the petitioner falls within a very short compass. By the notice inviting Expression of Interest [EOI] for Engagement of Contractor/Operator under No. F.7(2)- TRTC/CBD/Shadow/2012/90 dated 14.12.2015, the respondent No. 1 and 2 asked the Indian National residing permanently in Tripura being the resourceful and experienced contractors, who have valid license from IOCL to deal with Petroleum Products (Petrol, Diesel & Lubricants)and directly dealt with Running and management of Retail Outlet of Fuels with at least 3 (three) years experience, paying commission on the sale volume or Fuels and Lubricant(s) etc.(Per litre/ Kg. Basis) of IOCL product to TRTC per month basis to submit the EOI. The last date of receiving the EOI was 29.12.2015 [15:00 hrs.]. The petitioner had submitted EOI quoting rate on observing the other requirements. After scrutiny, there is no dispute that the offer was issued to the petitioner by the communication under No. F.7(2)- TRTC/CBD/Shadow/2012/404 dated 22.03.2016 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] as his quotation in response to the Notice Inviting Expression was accepted.
According to Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one notice under No. F.7(2)- TRTC/CBD/Shadow/2012/1123-25 dated 31.03.2016 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Managing Director of TRTC. The authority asked the petitioner to appear on 04.04.2016 at 10 A.M. sharp with all required original papers/documents of which the copies were submitted along with the EOI, for purpose of verification. Thereafter, by the communication dated 04.04.2016 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] the Managing Director, TRTC, Agartala, Tripura, respondent No.2 herein informed the petitioner as under :
"On verification of the documents submitted by Smt. Nandirung Reang, alongwith EOI, dated 14.12.2015, it appears that Smt. Nandirung Reang owner of M/s Nandi Reang Petroleum, Gandacharra, Dhalai has failed to fulfill the criteria of having 3(three) years Experiences on the date of submission of the EOI, as sought for."
In pursuance to the said decision taken by the respondent No.2, the general notice for cancellation of the EOI was issued on 05.04.2016. The respondents have also floated a fresh notice Inviting Expression of Interest for engagement of Contractor/ Operator on 12.04.2016 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition].
Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition urging this court to interfere with the order dated 04.04.2016, whereby the petitioner was held not conforming to the eligibility criteria so far it relates to the experience is concerned. It has been further urged to set aside the order dated 12.04.2016, which is actually a Notice Inviting Expression of Interest, on the ground that the said action is arbitrary in nature and hence, this court should exercise its jurisdiction for protecting the right of the petitioner.
Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria so for the experience is concerned. On verification of the original documents in presence of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did not have the required experience of 3 (three) years as sought for. Since, the petitioner did not have the eligibility in all respects on the last date of filing of the EOI dated 29.12.2015, his offer was not accepted by the respondent No.2 and accordingly, the entire process of EOI has been cancelled. The petitioner did not file any rejoinder against the said averment of the respondents No. 1 and 2. Even the petitioner could not file any document to demonstrate before this court that she had required 3 (three) years of experience in terms of the said notice inviting EOI.
As a result, this court does not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents and hence, this writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.