SANGITA ADVERTISING AGENCY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that requires consideration in this Writ Petition, appertains to the discretionary public law power, exercised by the public administration.

(2.) Before addressing to the questions those are involved in this proceeding the facts in brief are rehearsed below: The Deputy Director, N.E. Region, Guwahati Airport for Air-Port Authority of India the Respondent No. 2 invited sealed tenders on behalf of the Airport Authority of India from the experienced agencies for installation, maintenance and operation of closed circuit colour TV and operation of PA System at Guwahati Airport on annual rental basis for three years (Annexure-1 of the Writ Petition). In terms of the aforesaid advertisement the Petitioner, M/s World Watch International (Respondent No. 3 and "Ma Kamakhya" advertising agency submitted respective tenders at 3 PM of 14.5.96, as per the NIT, the tenders were opened. On opening of the tenders "Ma Kamakhya" advertising agency was found to be the highest bidder followed by the Respondent No. 3 and Petitioner respectively. The details of the respective offers reflected from the comparative statements are mentioned below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_521_GAULT1_1997Html1.htm</FRM> On the failure of the "Ma Kamakhya" Advertising Agency to submit requisite documents, despite opportunity granted the tender of the said firm was rejected. The Respondent No. 2 finally awarded the contract in question to the Respondent No. 3 at a rate higher than the rate specified in the tender by the Respondent No. 3 after a negotiated settlement, and accordingly the impugned acceptance letter dated 8.8.96 was issued by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-3 of the Writ Petition).

(3.) Mr. N. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner supplemented by Mr. S.K. Barkataky assailed the order of allotment of the contract in favour of the Respondent No. 3 as arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide. The public authority while allotting the Contract like a private individual can not act arbitrarily or capriciously and such authorities are bound to act justly, fairly and resonably submits learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also challenged the qualification and eligibility of the Respondent No. 3 in as much as in according to the Petitioner the experience and qualification of the Respondent No. 3 did not conform to the standard prescribed in the NIT.