( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order date 2. 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashing of the letter of the respondent No. 1 dated 8. 3. 1996 where the respondent No. 1 informed the appellant/writ petitioner that the latter had not- compiled with Para 5 (1) of the Letter of Intent dated 23. 2. 1996 and accordingly the old letter of Intent was no longer valid and also the letter dated 13. 3. 1996 whereby the respondent No. 1 asked the appellant to place aircraft by 14. 3. 1996 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein.

( 2 ) FEW facts relating to the present case are required to be set out for better appreciation of the issues raised in this appeal. The respondents in order to facilitate air passage to the intending Haj pilgrims to go to Jeddah and back to the country invited global bids in response to which the appellant submitted its bid in the month of October, 1995. After the bids were evaluated, the appellant was invited for negotiations in pursuance of which a formal Letter of Intent was issued to the appellant on 23. 2. 1996. In pursuance of the letter of negotiation, the respondents decided to inspect the aircrafts of fered by the appellant and two other parties namely, M/s. Aviatran and American International Airways. Two inspection teams/committees of two officers drawn from the Director General of Civil Aviation and Air India were constituted by the second respondent. These teams left India on 3rd and 4th March, 1996 in order to inspect the aircrafts offered by the appellants and the other two parties. On reaching their, the team found that some of the aircrafts offered by the appellant were not available for inspection. On completion of the inspection of aircrafts made available for inspection, the aforesaid two inspection teams submitted a report with regard to the position and airworthiness of the aircrafts offered by the different parties including the appellant. A copy of the said report is on record.

( 3 ) IN the meantime, however, i. e. on 8. 3. 1996 the first respondent informed the appellant that the latteras not complied with Para 5 (1) of the Letter of Intent dated 23. 2. 1996 as the aircrafts had not been made available for inspection and that accordingly the letter issued by the first respondent on 23. 2. 1996 was no longer valid. However, in pursuance of a letter of the appellant offering two Boeing 747 aircrafts in operation with Qatar Airways and the inspection being carried out in respect of one of such aircraft and finding the said to be well maintained a further opportunity was given to the appellant on 13. 3. 1996 asking the appellant to position their aircrafts by 14. 3. 1996 subject to certain conditions mentioned in the said letter. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two letter dated 8. 3. 1996 and 13. 3. 1996, the appellant preferred the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 contested the writ petition by filing a counter affidavitslating therein that the appellant through the writ petition was seeking for specific performance of an alleged agreement which had not fructified into an enforceable contract in the eyes of law. It was further stated that the Haj flight operations were scheduled to commence from 18. 3. 1996, but the appellant did not furnish any requisite performance guarantee, in absence of which it was not possible for the respondents to allow the appellant to carry on with the flight operations. It was also stated that the inspection carried out by the technical teams on behalf of the respondents gave reports of the highly unsatisfactory airworthiness of the aircrafts offered for inspection by the appellant. The further case of the respondent No. l in the counter affidavit was that the appellant had been seeking a claim as Mobilization Advance which was never a part of tender conditions or the negotiations held between the parties.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge after hea