ORDER

1. IN APRIL 1999, TENDERS WERE CALLED FOR "FROM PARTIES WITH PROVEN CREDENTIALS IN THE FIELD OF ORGANISING TOURISM-RELATED EXPOSITIONS" BY THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO ORGANISE THE INDIA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL EXPO & MART (IITEM) FOR THE YEARS 2000, 2001 AND 2002. THERE WERE 12 TENDERERS WHO HAD APPLIED. OUT OF THE 12 TENDERERS, FOUR WERE SHORTLISTED. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOUND THAT ALL THE FOUR TENDERERS APPEARED TO BE EQUAL INCLUDING EXPERIENCE AND OTHER FACTORS. THE COMMITTEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE MAIN CRITERION FOR ASSIGNING THE TENDER TO THE MOST SUITABLE PARTY SHOULD BE THE GUARANTEE OF "UPFRONT PAYMENT" TO THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT M/S TAFCON, THE APPELLANT BEFORE US, GUARANTEED THE HIGHEST UPFRONT PAYMENT OF RS 45 LAKHS FOR THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD AS AGAINST RS 39 LAKHS OF ANOTHER CONCERN. AS FAR AS THE WRIT PETITIONER (WHO IS RESPONDENT 3 BEFORE US) WAS CONCERNED, IT HAD OFFERED RS 7.50 LAKHS BY WAY OF UPFRONT PAYMENT. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THE APPELLANT TO BE CALLED AS THE "HIGHEST BIDDER" FOR DECIDING THE MODE OF "UPFRONT PAYMENT" AND "FIRMING UP THE NUMBER OF BUYERS FOR 2000-02".

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE CONSIDERED BY THE UNION OF INDIA. ON 15-12-1999, THE APPELLANTS OFFER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE UNION OF INDIA AND AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO. IN THE MEANWHILE, IN NOVEMBER 1999 RESPONDENT 3 FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE UNION OF INDIA TO CONSIDER RESPONDENT 3 FOR ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL FOR "TRAVEL AND TOURISM FAIR, 2000" BEING ORGANISED ON THE BASIS OF THE TENDER NOTICE AND FOR ISSUANCE OF FURTHER WRIT FOR SETTING ASIDE THE BID DATED 22-4-1999 SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF M/S TAFCON AND TO QUASH THE APPOINTMENT OF M/S TAFCON AS THE "EVENT MANAGER".

3. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION BY HIS ORDER DATED 17-1-2000. PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HELD IITEM BETWEEN 22-1-2000 AND 24-1-2000.

4. IN THE MEANWHILE, RESPONDENT 3 IMPUGNED THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DISMISSING ITS WRIT PETITION BY WAY OF AN APPEAL. THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE DIVISION BENCH WHICH SET ASIDE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE APPELLANT AS THE "EVENT MANAGER" AND DIRECTED THE ISSUE OF FRESH TENDERS FOR HOLDING IITEM FOR THE YEARS 2001-02.

5. TWO SEPARATE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS WERE FILED FROM THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH - ONE BY THE APPELLANT M/S TAFCON PROJECTS (1) PVT. LTD. (CA NO. 2507 OF 2001) AND THE SECOND BY THE UNION OF INDIA (CA NO. 4064 OF A 2001). ON 3-3-2001 LEAVE WAS GRANTED IN CA NO. 2507 OF 2001. NOTICE WAS DIRECTED TO BE ISSUED ON THE PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND THE OPERATION OF THE HIGH COURTS ORDER WAS STAYED IN THE MEANWHILE. THIS AD INTERIM STAY WAS CONFIRMED ON 3-9-2001. SIMILAR ORDERS WERE PASSED IN CA NO. 4064 OF 2001.

6. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED BY RESPONDENT 3 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS IN BOTH THE APPEALS, INTER ALIA, ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD CONTINUED TO ADVERTISE IITEM AS BEING HELD BY M/S TAFCON DESPITE THE HIGH COURTS ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE APPOINTMENT OF M/S TAFCON AS THE "EVENT MANAGER". WE ARE TOLD BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3 THAT THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS HAVE SINCE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT.

7. RESPONDENT 3 ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THIS COURT BEING IA NO. 2 OF 2003 SEEKING AN ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPEALS PREFERRED FROM THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS THE THREE YEARS MENTIONED IN THE TENDER NOTICE HAD ALREADY EXPIRED. DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN FOR FILING OF AFFIDAVITS. TODAY THE IA WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IITEM FOR THIS YEAR IS DUE TO BE HELD TOMORROW. WE WERE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN KEEPING THE D APPEALS PENDING SINCE THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER M/S TAFCON SHOULD BE