The Tank Truck Owners' Association vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

L. Mohapatra, J.—The petitioner before this Court is the Tank Truck Owners'' Association representing its members who claim to be owners of tank trucks. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the guidelines contained in the tender notice vide No. JT-3/2002/ HPCL/LOC(MD) /BPCL/IBP from P.O.L. tank truck owners as well as Corporation dealers for award of separate contracts for road transportation of bulk petroleum products like MS/HSD/SKO/Black oil/ATF/A.V. Gas, etc., to storage locations, such as Depots and out-lets within and outside the State of Orissa.

The Tender Call Notice has been challenged on the following grounds :

(i) Discrimination has been made between the P.O.L. tank truck owners and company dealers in the matter of deposit of Earnest Money and Security Deposit.

(ii) Restriction of plying vehicles not more than 15 years old is against the statutory provision of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Shri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Clause 4 of the Tender Call Notice, submitted that the P.O.L tank truck owners are required to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit whereas company dealers/distributors are required to pay Rs. 1000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit. Similarly, referring to Clause-D Shri Nayak submitted that the P.O.L. tank truck owners are required to deposit Rs. 5,0,000/- towards security deposit per Tank Truck, whereas Company dealers/distributors are required to deposit Rs. 25,000/- per tank truck. According to Sri Nayak, there could not have been any discrimination between the private tank truck owners and the tank truck owned by company dealers/ distributors in the matter of deposit of earnest money or security. Referring to Section 56 and 59 of the Motors Vehicles Act, Shri Nayak further submitted that once a fitness certificate is granted irrespective of age of the vehicle, the authorities cannot say that the vehicle is not fit for plying on the road or unsafe for any purpose and therefore putting restriction with regard to the age of the vehicle is unjustified and improper.

Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3 referring to the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 3 submitted that so far as difference of amount in relation to the earnest money and security deposit is concerned, there is no arbitrariness in such a condition. He also submitted that the restrictions imposed with regard to the age of the vehicle is also applicable to the tank truck offered by distributors/dealers of the company and therefore there is no discrimination in this regard so far as tank truck owners and the distributors/ dealers are concerned. Shri Mishra further submitted that all the Oil companies existing in the country have combined together for awarding contract for transportation of different products and tender call notice issued is on behalf of all the oil companies functioning in the country and same terms and conditions have been imposed and no discrimination whatsoever has been made.

We have perused the clause with regard to the earnest money deposit which shows that the existing dealers and distributors of the four oil companies are required to pay Rs. 1000/- towards earnest money whereas others are required to pay Rs. 10,000/-. So far as the security deposit is concerned, it also appears that the existing dealers/distributors of the four oil companies are required to pay Rs. 25,000/- per tank truck, whereas others are required to pay Rs. 50,000/- per tank truck. We do not find any arbitrariness in fixing such amount in view of the reason that the distributors/ dealers are under the administrative control of the oil companies, whereas private truck owners are not under the administrative control of the company. Therefore, there has been a difference between the dealers/distributors and the private tank truck owners. We therefore, do not think that the discrimination pointed by Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner involves any arbitrariness.

So far as second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Nayak is concerned, though he is correct in saying that once a fitness certificate is granted by the competent authority irrespective of age of the vehicle, same is permitted to ply on road, ware unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that restriction with regard to the age of the vehicle is arbitrary. There is no dispute that tank trucks to be engaged by the oil companies are required to carry highly inflammable materials, such as petrol, diesel, etc, and these vehicles are not only to ply on the National High Ways but also on State High Ways as well as inside towns. Unless safety measures are taken it may be hazardous for the public. If the Oil companies thought it proper to look into safety measures and make criteria with regard to age of the vehicle, we do not think there is any arbitrariness involve on it, rather such a decision is in the interest of safety of public. We, therefore, also do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. Moreover, this decision with regard to age of the vehicle is a policy decision of the Oil companies and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to interfere with such policy decision unless it is against public interest. Since we hold that such a decision is in the interest of safety of general public, this Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by the Oil companies. Similar writ application was filed before the Jharkhand High Court by the Jharkhand Tanker Owner Association in W. P. (C) No. 1869 of 2003. The said writ application was dismissed on 23.4.2003 on the ground that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with a policy decision which is not found to be against public interest.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ application and the same stands dismissed.

Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.

I agree