Judicial review of tender processes is restricted to instances of manifest arbitrariness or illegality. Authorities possess the discretion to permit the rectification of minor bid deficiencies, and procedural deviations caused by technical failures do not warrant judicial interference unless they demonstrably prejudice the integrity of the procurement.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the tender evaluation process undertaken by the Respondent Authorities in respect of the Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as "RFP") dated 20.01.2026, issued by the Respondent No. 1, Airports Authority of India, for the development, operation and maintenance of Duty-Free Outlets at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata.

2. The facts leading to the present case are as follows.

3. The Petitioner, Flemingo Duty Freeshop Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in the business of managing and operating duty-free retail outlets at international airports across India. The Petitioner has been operating duty- free outlets at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata, having emerged as the successful bidder pursuant to a Request for Proposal issued in September 2015. The Petitioner's Concession Agreement, originally for a period of seven years, was extended by Respondent No. 1, Airports Authority of India, owing to the unprecedented disruption caused to international passenger operations and the travel retail sector, and the extended term remained valid until 21.04.2026.

4. On 20.01.2026, Respondent No. 1 issued a fresh Request for Proposal for the development, operation and maintenance of Duty-Free Outlets at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata.

5. Prior to participating in the fresh tender process, the Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. WPA 3830/2026 titled Flemingo Duty Freeshop Pvt. Ltd. v. AAI, challenging the legality and validity of Clause 2.2.1 of the RFP pertaining to the eligibility criterion relating to "Outstanding Dues" as well as Article 7.3.1 of the draft Concession Agreement, which provided for unilateral set-off and adjustment of alleged dues. This Court, vide order dated 05.03.2026, directed Respondent No. 1 to permit the Petitioner to participate in the tender without imposing the condition prescribed under Clause 2.2.2(d) thereof. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner submitted its bid in response to the RFP.

6. The terms and conditions of the RFP, read with the provisions of the AAI Commercial Manual, 2025, stipulated that all communications, queries and clarifications pertaining to the bid process were required to be routed exclusively through the Central Public Procurement Portal ("CPP Portal"), with the stated objective of ensuring transparency, uniformity and equal treatment of all participating bidders.

7. During the course of evaluation of the bids received, the Respondent Authorities, vide communication dated 20.04.2026, issued a query to Respondent No. 2, Nuance Group (India) Private Limited, under the heading "Shortfall of Documents" noting that Respondent No. 2 had not duly signed and stamped certain specified pages of the Chartered Accountant certified documents submitted along with the bid, and directing Respondent No. 2 to resubmit duly signed and stamped documents. Respondent No. 2 resubmitted the said documents on 23.04.2026, thereby rectifying the deficiencies noted. It is further stated that Respondent No. 2 had affixed a digital signature in place of a manual signature on the documents so submitted.

8. On the same date, i.e., 20.04