P.A. MUSTHAFA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the Airport Authority of India dated 27.4.2016 granting licence to the third respondent for operating Baggage Wrapping Service at Trivandrum International Airport is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in operating Baggage Wrapping Service in various Airports. He is presently operating the Baggage Wrapping Service at Trivandrum International Airport. When the term of the licence granted to the petitioner for rendering the said service was about to be over, e -tenders have been invited for grant of licence to operate the Baggage Wrapping Service at Trivandrum International Airport for the next term, as per Ext.P15 notice. Ext.P15 tender notice prescribes, among others, that the machine used for rendering the service shall be equipped with safety sensors and a built -in weighing scale for weighing passenger baggage. Ext.P15 tender notice also prescribes that the machine shall have in -built EPOS and shall generate receipt automatically, without manual intervention, showing receipt number, net amount and service/sales tax charged from passenger for the baggage wrapping. The said eligibility criterion included in Ext.P15 notice as clause 4(ii) reads thus:

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Airport Authority contending, among others, that the Head Quarters of the Airport Authority is the authority competent to prescribe the eligibility criteria for awarding licence to operate Baggage Wrapping Service; that the eligibility criteria for the Baggage Wrapping Service in the Airports prescribed earlier have been reviewed and fresh criteria have been prescribed by the Head Quarters of the Airport Authority as per Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) communications dated 19.2.2015 and 24.4.2015 respectively and that Ext.P15 tender notice was published with the eligibility criteria prescribed in Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). The averment in the writ petition that the machine specified in Ext.P15 tender notice is not available anywhere in the world has been specifically denied by the Airport Authority in the counter affidavits filed by them. It was also contended by the Airport Authority in the counter affidavit that bids have been invited earlier for granting licence to operate the Baggage Wrapping Service at Madurai Airport with the same requirements as contained in Exts.R4(a) and R4(b); that the petitioner has participated in the said tender process claiming that he possesses the machine specified in Ext.P15 and secured licence to operate Baggage Wrapping Service at Madurai Airport and that therefore, he is estopped from contending that such a machine is not available for purchase anywhere in the world.