AMIT B THAKKER Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner in this petition is for quashing the action of the first respondent awarding the contract for ground handling work on behalf of Air India at S.V.P. International Airport, Ahmedabad to the second respondent. Brief allegations in the writ petition are as under.

(2.) . The petitioner is proprietor of a firm M/s. Meeta Constructions and is engaged in multifarious activities having vide experience in various fields at the management level. In the first week of June, 1997, advertisement appeared in Times of India, inviting tenders from various agencies for taking up ground handling work on behalf of Airport at S.V.P. International Airport at Ahmedabad. In response to this advertisement, the petitioner submitted his tender to the respondent No. 1 on 20-6-1997 @ Rs. 45,100.00 per flight as ground handling charges. Subsequently, further details were sought from the petitioner which were submitted by him. The tenders were opened at Bombay. The second respondent quoted rate in its tender at Rs. 55,000.00 per flight without equipments and with some other conditions. Thereafter, negotiations were carried out and revised quotations were given @ Rs. 19,000.00 per flight along with the terms and conditions which were enumerated in the letter dated 2-12-1997. At the time of opening tenders on 4-9-1997, four tenders were received by the respondent No. 1, out of which tenders at Sr. No. 2 and 3 were rejected as they were not as per the requirement. Tenders of the petitioner and the second respondent were considered. The petitioner, through Fax message, intimated his readiness and willingness to reduce the rates already quoted by him. However, the tender was finalised behind the back of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 had given the contract to the respondent No. 2, which is assailed on the ground that the action of the respondent No. 1 is arbitrary, mala fide and that it has caused unnecessary burden on the exchequer, inasmuch as the person offering higher tender was awarded the contract. On the point of mala fide, the allegation is that the persons who are directors of the second respondent are ex-employees of the first respondent and they are having close relations with the Directors of the first respondent and hence favour has been shown to the second respondent by the first respondent. It is further alleged that the second respondent is having their establishment at Bombay whereas the petitioner being local person is having infrastructural facilities at Ahmedabad and the petitioner could have given better services.

(3.) . Both the respondents have filed separate counter-affidavits. The respondent No. 1, in its counter-affidavit, has mentioned that the ground flight handling at Ahmedabad International Airport was previously performed by Indian Airlines Ltd., on behalf of Air India Ltd. and was charging Rs. 53,500.00 per flight in the year 1991. It was raised to Rs. 85,250.00 per flight from 1-4-1997. Since the operation became too much expensive for the Air India to operate International Flights from Ahmedabad, a policy decision was taken to appoint independent contractor to perform the services of ground flight handling on behalf of Air India. Ground flight handling comprises of various functions enumerated in detail in para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by this respondent. It is with this view that public advertisement was issued and for scrutinising the tenders, a subcommittee was constituted and keeping in view the recommendations of the said committee, contract was awarded to the respondent No. 2. The said sub-committee short-listed only three parties viz; (1) M/s. Aerocare (ii) M/s. Meeta Construction (petitioner) and M/s. Global Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 2). By letter dated 1-9-1997, further details regarding experience, etc. were called for and considering the expertise and experience in operating ground flight handling, the contract was given to the respondent No. 2. Allegations of mala fides and arbitrariness have been denied. Allegation of discrimination and favouritism to respondent No. 2 has also been denied.