The court emphasized the importance of adherence to tender specifications and the discretion of the awarding authority in commercial transactions. The absence of mala-fides and the transparency of the decision-making process were also highlighted.

( 1 ) ECIL Rapiscan Ltd. , which is the petitioner in CWP NO. 6615/2002 is joint venture of electronic Corporation of India Ltd. , a government of India Undertaking and Opto sensors Incorporation, USA. Tender submitted by this petitioner for supply of 220 colour XBIS-X-ray baggage inspection system has been rejected and order is placed on respondent No. 3 for supply aforesaid system. The petitioner is challenging rejection of its bid and award of contract in favour of respondent No. 3 in this writ petition.

( 2 ) OPTO Sensors has two subsidiary companies, namely, Rapiscan Security products Ltd. , U. K. and U. S. A. and Opto. Sensors, Malaysia. One of its subsidiaries, namely, Rapiscan Security Products Ltd. , USA had also submitted its bid pursuant to same - tender which met the same fate. Accordingly, this petitioner, namely, Rapiscan Security products Ltd. , USA has also filed CWP No. 7240/2002 praying for same relief i. e. quashing of the order rejecting its bid and award of contract dated 3rd September, 2002 in favour of respondent No. 3.

( 3 ) PRODUCT of both the petitioners is same with same technical specifications which was offered in the bids submitted by these petitioners. Thus, as the same tender is in question in both the petitions and on same grounds bids of the both the petitioners were rejected and the challenge in the petitions to the action of respondent in these writ petitions is also common, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 4 ) FOR the sake convenience, facts in CWP no. 6615/2002 are noted. Additional facts which require mention in so far as CWP No. 7240/2002 is concerned would be mentioned at the appropriate stage.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, i. e. , Airport Authority of India (AAI) issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), published on 20th November, 2001, for the supply of 145 colour XBIS X-ray baggage inspection System. However/ this was cancelled on 6th March, 2002. Thereafter another NIT dated 7th June, 2002 was published for supply of 220 colour XBIS. Tenders were to be submitted in two parts, namely, technical bid and financial bid. Technical bids were to be opened and evaluated in the first instance. Financial bids of only those bidders were required to be opened who qualified in technical evaluation. Both the petitioners as well as respondent no. 3 and others submitted their bids which were opened on 19th July, 2002. These bids were evaluated on 30th, 31st July and 1st august, 2002. On 5th August, 2002 petitioner sent fax to respondent No. 2 requesting it to intimate the probable date of the financial/ commercial bids. Nothing was heard. Therefore, reminder dated 6th September, 2002 was sent. It was followed by letter dated 11th September, 2002 to the Chairman of respondent No. 2 pointing out the alleged irregularities in the technical evaluation of the petitioner s System. The petitioner also wrote letter dated 17th September, 2002 to the secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation pointing out same irregularities. Reminders dated 18th and 19th September, 2002 were also sent to respondent No. 2. Thereafter on 19th september, 2002 petitioner received letter dated 10th September, 2002 from respondent No. 2 informing that tender had been awarded to respondent No. 3. The petitioner registered its protest vide letter dated 20th September, 2002 addressed to respondent No. 2 and also sent another communication of the same date to commissioner, BSAS followed by representation dated 30th September, 2002 to Ministry of Civil Aviation. Receiving no response, present writ petition was filed.

( 6 ) IN so far as petitioner in CWP No. 7240/ 2002 is concerned, after the technical evaluation, this petitioner also sent letter dated 18th September, 2002 pointing out alleged irregularities in the procedure for evaluation of technical bids and received same kind of reply dated 10th September, 2002 on 19th september, 2002 informing that its bid had been rejecte