SHARMA TRANSPORTS Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Hegde in support of his submission. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Samadani appeared for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Thorat appeared for respondent No. 2. Both of them waive service of the Rule. Both of them have filed their replies; rejoinder is also filed and the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is in the business of conducting tours and runs the transport business for that purpose also. Respondent No. 1 is Airport Authority of India and the grievance in this petition is about the notice inviting the tenders issued by the first respondent on 28th May, 2001. It was published in Newspaper on 2nd June, 2001. It is the submission of the petitioner that Clause 3 (a) of this notice is bad in law and is repugnant to the purpose which is sought to be attained. The notice invited tenders from transporters who would provide luxurious coach service from Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport Mumbai, to Southern States of India and condition No. 3 (a) of this notice required fulfilment of the criteria that the participant has a three years experience of managing of similar business and should be approved by the Department of tourism, Government of India and International Air Transport Association. Prayer (a) seeks that this clause be directed to be cancelled. It is stated in this petition that this clause is not related to the purpose to be achieved and particularly the requirement of approval of International Air Transport Association (IATA) is not necessary for this facility of running the coaches to the southern states. It is stated in paragraph 3 specifically that IATA has no concern whatsoever with other modes of transport and definitely excludes road and/or surface transport. It is also stated in the petition that IATA exclusively deals with business of issuing air tickets. It is alleged in the petition that advertisement was aimed at eliminating competitive bidders particularly to favour respondent No. 2 M/s. Akbar Travels of India. The petitioner is not having the IATA approval and hence the Commercial Department of the respondent No. 1 refused to issue the tender form to the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 that in a similar contract in Delhi the condition of IATA approval was not existing. It was therefore, requested in the letter dated 16th June, 2001 that the condition of IATA approval be dropped in the interest of fair competition as this condition is irrelevant to this tender. This letter was written by the petitioner before coming to the Court. Inasmuch as the letter did not meet with a proper response, this petition was filed on 15th June, 2001.

(3.) WHEN this petition came up earlier before the Bench of Mr. A. P. Shah and Mr. S. A. Bobde, JJ. , on 29th June, 2001, ad interim injunction was granted restraining the first respondent from awarding the suit contract and that has been running since then.