S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

( 1 ) ISSUE Rule. With consent of parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) IN these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the cancellation of a tender process initiated by the first respondent, airpprts Authority of India (hereafter "aai") as well as its subsequent decision to award the contract for services of recovery cranes to remove vehicles from the "no Parking Area" to the second respondent.

( 3 ) THE AAI had, through an advertisement dated 16th May 2003, called for tenders for the purposes of providing services for recovery cranes for towing of light vehicles parked in the "no Parking Zone" of AAI, Indira Gandhi international Airport, New Delhi ["the airport"]. Bidders were required to quote rates chargeable by them. This meant that the bidders were to indicate the rates payable on the basis of deployment of certain number of cranes, six shifts each day. It is not in dispute that as per the conditions, the petitioner was eligible to bid, which he did.

( 4 ) THE technical bids were opened on 25. 6. 2003. Later, commercial bids of all the four concerns/parties who had tendered, were opened on 16. 7. 2003. The petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. He had quoted Rs. 2,400/- per day for operating six shifts from the AAI. The other bidders had quoted higher rates.

( 5 ) THE AAI wrote a letter on 20th November, 2003, returning the earnest money deposit of the petitioner, to the tune of Rs. 45,000/ -. He, therefore, questioned the non-award of contract and return of his earnest money deposit, in earlier writ proceedings in WP No. 3718-19/04. In that petition, he had impleaded the respondent No. 2, namely, M/s. Mahesh and Sunny Enterprises. That petition was founded upon the alleged illegajity of the return of his earnest money deposit and the award of contract to the second respondent. That petition was however rejected on 20th April, 2004 on the ground of nondisclosure of relevant details and vague averments. No liberty was sought or granted to file any writ petition on the same cause of action.

( 6 ) IN the present proceedings, the award of contract to the second respondent, without following the tender process and the cancellation of the bids pursuant to the tender notice dated 16. 5. 2003, have been questioned as arbitrary.

( 7 ) IN reply to the notice issued, the AAI has averred that pursuant to the tender process, four parties including the petitioner were supplied with tender documents. The technical bids of all the parties were opened on 25. 6. 2003; commercial bids were opened on 16. 7. 2003. The AAI avers that the petitioner was the lowest bidder. It however alleges that the rate quoted by the petitioner was found to be unworkable, in that it was less than cost estimated by it. The petitioner had quoted Rs. 2400/- per day for all the six shifts whereas according to the estimation of AAI, the cost of the said shifts itself was Rs. 4950/- per day and that the rates quoted by the petitioner were not sufficient to meet the expenses, reasonably necessary for providing the services.

( 8 ) IN view of the above, the AAI avers that the matter was referred to the headquarters of the Airport Authority for appropriate directions and that as per the decision received, all tenders were cancelled; the earnest money received from various parties were refunded in November 2003.

( 9 ) AS far as the award of contract to the second respondent is concerned, the AAI avers that on 9th December, 2003, it; made arrangements with the help of the IGI Airport car parking management licensee, which is the second respondent, for towing away the vehicles parked in the airport premises unauthorizedly/ in the No Parking Zone. It is averred that such an arrangement was made following the pattern existing in the Chennai Airport and that in this arrangement or scheme, the AAI does not have to incur any expenses; instead it leads to augmenting of its revenue. The r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document