P.A. MUSTHAFA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.(C).No.12613/2013 is the appellant before us. The challenge in the writ petition was against Ext.P4 communication issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'AAI'). By the said communication, the petitioner was informed that his tender, submitted in connection with a contract for operating the baggage wrapping machine at the departure area of the International Terminal Building in Thiruvananthapuram Airport, was rejected. He was further informed that the tender proceedings itself had been cancelled and it was decided by the AAI to retender the licence for operating baggage wrapping machine at the International Terminal of Thiruvananthapuram Airport.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant had responded to a Notice Inviting Tender, (hereinafter referred to as 'NIT'), floated by the AAI for grant of licence to operate a baggage wrapping machine in the departure area of the International Terminal Building at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport. As per the terms of the NIT, the bid was to be submitted in two separate envelops containing the technical bid and financial bid respectively. According to the appellant, the bids were opened and after finding the bid of the appellant to be technically qualified, the financial bid was also opened and the appellant was found to be the highest bidder. Accordingly, Ext.P3 letter dated 01.02.2013 was issued to him whereby he was informed of the fact that he was the highest bidder and that the bid submitted by him had been forwarded to the competent authority for approval as also for recommendation to award the tender to the highest bidder. It is the case of the appellant that thereafter, by Ext.P4 letter dated 09.05.2013, he was informed of the rejection of his bid and cancellation of the tender itself. Since the reasons stated in Ext.P4 were not factually correct and also legally untenable, the appellant preferred the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 communication.

(3.) THE learned Judge however found that the appellant was not entitled to a further direction to the respondents to proceed further with the tender proceedings as, according to the learned Judge, the appellant did not have a right to demand the award of work to him more so when the AAI had, in public interest, decided to proceed for retender. It is challenging the subsequent finding of the learned Single Judge, as regards the absence of a right in the appellant to demand the award of the work to him, that the appellant is before us in this appeal.