P A MUSTHAFA Vs. UNION OF INDIA; AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA; AIRPORT DIRECTOR; SENIOR MANAGER (COMMERCIAL); REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to be a licensee with respect to various commercial contracts under the Airports Authority of India [for brevity "AAI"] challenges the decision of the 2nd respondent to cancel the contract notified as per Exhibit P1 tender, in which the petitioner turned out to be the successful bidder. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, this is the second time the tender in which the petitioner had come out successful has been cancelled, which clearly indicates the malafides involved in the matter. The petitioner is purposefully kept out of the work which is sought to be awarded by Exhibit P1, is the contention raised and even if no malafides could be found, the learned Senior Counsel would urge that the same is a fit case in which legal malafides could be imputed on the respondents.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the AAI, however, would contend that there could be no allegation of malafides and the fact that twice the petitioner came out successful could not be a ground to award tender and the cancellation in both instances, was only an unfortunate circumstance necessitated only by reason of the change in policy. Even at the earlier point of time, this Court has specifically found that there was no malafides in the decision to cancel the award of the tender. The cancellation which had been effected twice, were on valid grounds. The respondent also relies on Jagdish Mandal .

(3.) Exhibit P1 is the notification which has been brought out by the AAI for awarding the work of operating Baggage Wrapping Machine in the Departure Terminal of the International Airport. The award, as per Exhibit P1, was to be for a period of three years and carried a license fee of Rs.4,37,000/- per month. The maximum rate a tenderer could quote, was Rs.200/-, viz., the amount collected for each baggage from the customer. Exhibit P1 notification also provided for 10% escalation after three years. Admittedly three persons applied pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification, which tenders were opened on 11.08.2014. Only two tenderers were qualified in the technical bid. The financial bid of the two successful pre-qualified tenderers, one of whom was the petitioner, was opened ten days hence. The petitioner was found to have bid lower, at the rate of Rs.97/-. On 01.09.2014, the Committee decided to award the tender to the petitioner, as is evident at Exhibit R3(d) dated 02.09.2014. However, after 43 days on 14.11.2014 a letter is said to have been received by the petitioner, by which the CHQ (Central Headquarters) directed the award of the tender to be kept in hold for reason of there being some change in the guidelines. So much is evident from the communication at Exhibit P3, dated 07.11.2014.