LAWS(MAD)-2025-2-215

GOLDAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAJEEV MATTA Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THROUGH JOINT GENERAL MANGER (OPERATIONS), REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN REGION OPERATIONAL OFFICES COMPLEX CHENNAI AIRPORT

Decided On February 26, 2025
Goldair India Private Limited, Through Its Director Mr. Rajeev Matta Appellant
V/S
Airports Authority Of India, Through Joint General Manger (Operations), Regional Headquarters Southern Region Operational Offices Complex Chennai Airport Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking the records regarding the order contained in the email dtd. 11/2/2025 and all further proceedings consequent thereto, to quash it and consequently direct the respondents to accept the petitioner's consortium bid dtd. 21/11/2024 concerning tender No. 2024_AAI_212075_1 dtd. 21/10/2024 and for other orders.

(2.) The Writ Petitioner's case is that when the aforementioned tender dtd. 21/10/2024 was floated, the petitioner submitted a bid. The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of another company named M/s Goldair Handling SA, which is also a member of the consortium. The petitioner relies on its experience and qualifications to qualify technically for the bid. However, after submitting the bid on 1/1/2025, the respondent informed the petitioner via email that they must upload the relevant documents due to a shortfall regarding qualification.

(3.) Upon reviewing the aforementioned e-mail, the petitioner was instructed to obtain a no-due certificate from the Airports Authority of India at Bagdogra and Udaipur. Consequently, the petitioner reached out to the relevant authorities. In response, the authorities stated that the petitioner, namely, Goldair India Private Limited or its consortium member, M/s Goldair Handling SA, is not a concessionaire for any project, and there is no active contract. Therefore, they indicated that they would not issue a no-due certificate upon the petitioner's request. Subsequently, when this information was presented to the respondent, following an exchange of communications, the impugned order was issued, resulting in the rejection of the petitioner's bid. The grounds on which the petitioner's bid was rejected are extracted below: