AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. KANWAR SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Senior Civil Judge directing for maintenance of status quo regarding allotment of the Snack Bar in question. The respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge contending inter alia that the defendant No. 1/petitioner did not consider the bid of respondent No. 1 for operating the Snack Bar counter on the first floor of the New Visitors Lounge at Terminal II of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, and instead proceeded to award the contract, in violation of the terms an conditions governing the tender. It was also stated that although the respondent No. 1 was the highest eligible bidder for the said contract, the petitioner was contemplating to award the said contract to some other bidder whose bid was much less than that of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff sought for a decree for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from awarding the contract to any person other than the plaintiff and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to open the envelop 'B' of the plaintiff and award the said contract to him. Alongwith the aforesaid suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 was also filed by respondent No. 1. The aforesaid application was taken up for consideration after the petitioner filed its written statement contending inter alia that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 10, 14, 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. In the said written statement a plea was also taken by the petitioner that the bid of the respondent No. 1 was not submitted according to the terms and conditions of the tender documents and he did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the terms and conditions and that there was no valid offer of respondent No. 1 which could be considered for acceptance and therefore, envelop 'B' of the plaintiff which contained the bid price was not opened as the envelop 'A' submitted by him was not found to contain the required documents. The Civil Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the respondent No. 1 failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour for grant of an ad interim injunction. It was also found by him that balance of convenience also did not lie in favour of respondent No. 1 and that he would not suffer any irreparable loss as the loss suffered could be compensated by way of damages. Having held this the Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge. In the said appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 the Senior Civil Judge while issuing notice granted an ad interim order directing for maintenance of status quo regarding allotment of the Snack Bar in question. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on which notice was issued on 19.1.1998. This court by a further order directed that in the mean time implementation of the order dated 25.11.1997 would remain stayed. In the mean time the petitioner proceeded to award the contract in question in favour of respondent No. 2 and therefore, by order dated 19.3.1998 this Court ordered that if the contract had been awarded the same would not be acted upon. The aforesaid order came to be modified on an application filed by respondent No. 2 that till further orders the Canteen would be run by the contractor to whom the contract had been given by the petitioner. Pursuant to aforesaid order the respondent No. 1 has been running the Snack Bar in question pursuant to award of the contract in its favour by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Y.K.Kapur, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not found eligible in terms of the information furnished under envelop 'A' containing the technical bid and therefore, the envelop 'B' containing the financial bid of respondent No. 1 was not opened. It was submitted that since the respondent No. 1 did not fulfil the eligibility criteria the Appellate Court acted illegally in issuing an ad interim injunction in the present case, without giving any speaking order although the Civil Judge had given detailed reasons for rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also submitted that by passing the aforesaid order the Senior Civil Judge not only created a vacuum inrespect of running of the Snack Bar by passing the aforesaid order but also caused virtual stoppage of running of the snack bar which was catering to the need of the public visiting the airport lounge. The said order, he submitted, also caused heavy financial loss for the petitioner was deprived of the right of collecting revenue and the license fee from the aforesaid Snack Bar. He also submitted that when the suit itself was not maintainable there was no question of granting any injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 for issuance of such an injunction was also in violation of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. It was also submitted that at the stage when the suit was filed no contract was awarded and therefore, the respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to file the suit which was in the garb of enforcement of specific performance of contract which was even otherwise not maintainable under the provisions of Specific Relief Act.