LKP MERCHANT FINANCING LTD Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DIVISION CHENNAI AIRPORT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and cancel the condition contained in para 4 (a) of the notice inviting tender dated 13. 9. 1999 and issue a fresh notice inviting tender for the purpose of allotting money exchange counters at Chennai which shall not include the said condition.

(2.) THE petitioners are carrying on business as money changers under valid licences given by the Reserve Bank of India at various places including Chennai. Till recently, according to the petitioner, the money changers/authorised dealers are permitted to operate money exchange counters at airports by private treaty. For the first time, the Airport authority of India, Chennai, the 1st respondents invited sealed tenders in the prescribed form from reputed authorised money exchange agencies, nationalised and Foreign Bank for setting up and operation of Money Exchange Counters at 6 locations in Anna International Terminal and one location in the Departure Area of KDT. In the tender notice itself it is stated that the parties who are participating in the tender should possess minimum experience of 5 years of operating Money Exchange Counter at Ports/railways/airports. Under clause 5 of the said notice it is also stated that the tender documents will be given only if the tenders fulfil the eligibility criteria mentioned therein.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that when the respondents has taken a policy decision to call for open tenders, they should have given an opportunity to all the licensed Money exchangers like the petitioners, who are also reputed Money Exchangers, without insisting the said conditions as extracted above. THE learned counsel has further submitted that the said conditions have been introduced only to help a few persons who alone are having such experience as mentioned in clause 4 (a) of the said conditions. According to her, such a condition as mentioned in clause 4 (a) of the said tender notice is not only arbitrary but also misuse of powers and so this Court has to struck down such a condition. THE learned counsel in support of her submission has relied on the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 S. C. 11.