The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to BPCL’s tender conditions for transportation of petroleum products, which included reservations and concessions for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) and Micro & Small Enterprises (MSE) bidders.
The petitioners, existing transport contractors with BPCL, had objected to certain provisions in the tender for road transportation of petroleum products from BPCL’s Manmad depot. They argued that the reservations including the allocation of top-loading tank lorries (TLs), waiver of ownership norms, and concessions in security deposits were discriminatory and violated their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They also contested the legality of the 1994 Government guidelines that enabled such measures.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, however, upheld the tender terms, holding that the petitioners had previously participated in similar tenders without raising objections and had not challenged the guidelines in the past. The Court found that the 1994 guidelines were traceable to Article 46 of the Constitution, which empowers the State to promote the economic interests of weaker sections, including SC/ST communities.
Regarding MSE reservations, the Court held that BPCL’s conditions aligned with Section 11 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and the applicable Public Procurement Policy mandating procurement from MSEs.
Rejecting the petitioners’ reliance on precedents such as C.K. Achuthan v. State of Kerala, 1958 SCC Online SC 86, Erusian Equipment v. State of W.B. (1975) 1 SCC 70, and Reliance Energy v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1, the Court found them inapplicable. The Court reiterated that the provision of reservations or concessions in public tenders does not infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), nor does it amount to creating a monopoly. The Court further emphasized that a public sector entity like BPCL is entitled to design eligibility conditions based on broader policy goals and social equity.
Observing no arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity in the tender process or the underlying guidelines, and noting that many petitioners had already secured contracts, the Court dismissed the writ petition along with pending interim applications.
Appearances:
For Petitioners: Mr. F.T. Mirza, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anand Deshpande and Ms. Amita Chaware
For BPCL: Mr. Girish Godbole, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Roop Basu and Mr. Ahmed Padela i/b The Law Point
For Union of India: Mr. Vinit Jain with Mr. A.R. Varma
For Applicants: Mr. Akshay Lengare with Mr. Aniket Sangle, Mr. Sanket Garud, Mr. Anis Shaikh i/b Mr. Ajinkya Gaikwad
