GUDDI ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is so preferred by M/s. Guddi Enterprises, a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or for passing any direction, challenging the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as NIT), in connection with issuance of licence for operating the Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport, Guwahati issued by the Airport Authority of India, North Eastern Region, Guwahati Airport, Guwahati published on 6.4.98 in English Daily the Assam Tribune. A copy of the NIT so published is being filed marked as Annexure-I to this petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. R.M. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that M/s. Guddi Enterprise is engaged in catering business since long and even runs Airport Snacks Bar at Guwahati Airport, fulfilling all its criteria. The respondent No.2 is a statutory body and instrumentality of a State constituted under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. The NIT in question was for having the licence for operating Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport so published by the respondent No. 5 Regional Executive Director and the criteria for making a person eligible for participating was so published in the NIT (Annexure-I) is under challenge. It is pointed out that the said NIT suffers from vagueness which as submitted cannot be said to be self-contained document. In the instant case publication of the NIT in question being in connection with commercial contract can well be said to be a basic document inviting attention of the public in general for participating thereunder which rather should have been as per the National Airport Authority's standard form and terms and conditions should not have been incomplete, arbitrary imposing cumbersome conditions. The NIT in question as submitted suffers from all above defects. There is no commencement date, area or space location so also not shown in the notice inviting tender on 6.4.98. There were also wanton proposition particularly Clause (3) of the NIT without indicating as to how the outstanding dues to be ascertained. These irregularities, as submitted by Mr. R.N. Chatterjee are having exfacie bearing on the very face of the tender notice under challenge which is thus liable to be struck off/set aside and hence this writ petition.

(3.) It is also the case of the petitioner M/s. Guddi Enterprises that it was not given the same treatment/chance which is contrary to the basic rule and natural justice making it liable for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that as per Clause (4) of the NIT, tender documents were to be availed by 22.4.98 on payment of Rs. 500/-. These documents included full details of licence, terms and conditions, general guidance, form of tender and form of agreement. After receiving such tender documents they were directed to be filled Up and presented through Tender Box before the authority concerned by 24.4.98 when as per clause (6) of the NIT the tenders were to be opened on that very date i.e. 24.4.98 itself at 1500 hours. In this connection it is pointed out that when the present petitioner approached the authority concerned on 18.4.98 demanding tender documents on payment of Rs. 500/- he was being denied to be supplied with these documents on the ground that there was some injunction orders passed by the Court and this denial was nothing but giving a step-motherly treatment to the present petitioner which can well said to be malafide, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice while on the other hand, with regard to some of the persons receiving tender documents prior to 18.4.98, though not submitting those tender papers duly filled up by 24.4.98, were given privilege of extension of date of their depositing tenders only on having private communication with them extendingthe date for them upto 6.5.98 without in any way noticing public in general with regard to this extension of date upto 6.5.98. This act on the part of the respondents as to declaring extension of the NIT under challenge is violation of sub principles of law. It is also pointed out that if any of the Clauses of the agreement [3(c) of the agreement was to be so deleted by the authority, reference of which is made in the affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the respondents marked as Annexure-IV, it was incumbent on the part of the authority to issue public notice to that effect instead of having private correspondence with Hotel Bellieview and four others who are said to have procured tender documents prior to 18.4.98 though not submitting the same by 24.4.98. On the point that Hotel Bellieview and four others did not deposit tender papers by 24.4.98, Mr. Chatterjee has referred to Annexure-III of the affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the respondent and submitted that in a letter so issued by the authority to Hotel Bellieview (Private) Ltd. and four others, the authority is specific in questioning them to deposit tender papers by 6.5.98 and the said letter is so issued on 30.4.98. A reference is also made to Annexure-II of the affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the authority/ respondents which is dated 8.5.98. In this connection, it is vehemently argued that so far as Annexures-II & III of the affidavit-in- opposition are concerned, these letters are issued to same of the persons who are said to have though received tender documents prior to 18.4.98, but correspondence entered into completely in violation of this Court's order dated 29.4.98 so passed in M.A.(F) No. 62/98 in its Misc. Case No. 93/98 by which as submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, the authority was simply directed as to sort out the tender so received without in any way issuing orders or having any communication with the tenderers who have already purchased tenders. This violation on the part of the authority is so apparent on the face of record that it in itself is sufficient to establish that equal opportunity was not so given to the present petitioner which was so contrary to the basic rule and principles of naturaljustice.