MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

1. The important question for consideration relates to the circumstances in which a single bid can be rejected and re-tendering ordered. In our opinion, when there is intrinsic evidence (as in this case) that the single bid is financially depressed and there is a real prospect of getting a much higher bid, the administrative authority can set aside the tendering process and call for a fresh tender.

2. Sometime in January, 2008 the Respondents issued a Notice Inviting Tender for installing ball/balloon lights at Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Jaipur and Chennai airports. In the Notice Inviting Tender, the minimum eligibility criterion required experience of three years but this was later reduced to a period of one year. Unfortunately, neither of the parties has stated the minimum reserve licence fee for each of the airports. However, from Annexure P- 2 to the writ petition it appears that the minimum reserve licence fee at Ahmedabad airport was Rs.20,000/- per balloon per month.

3. The Petitioner says that since he had the requisite experience and had given the highest bid, he ought to have been awarded the contract for setting up ball/balloon lights at the four airports mentioned above. In fact, the Petitioner has gone a step further and says that he is the only qualified person being the only one with the requisite experience.

4. It appears that the Petitioner was given the contract relating to Jaipur airport for setting up ball/balloon lights at Rs.42,000/- per balloon per month. Therefore, the controversy presently only relates to the Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Chennai airports.

5. One of the bidders, namely, M/s Meena Advertising from Chennai was adjudged by the Respondents to be lacking in technical qualifications and was, therefore, not considered for award of the tender. M/s Meena Advertising challenged its disqualification by filing a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition (Civil) No.3085 of 2008 in which it was contended that it had the requisite experience of one year. This writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 31st July, 2008.

6. According to the Petitioner, notwithstanding this, it was not awarded the tender for the three airports that we are concerned with. The Petitioner accordingly sent representations to the Respondents but they decided to cancel the tendering process itself and invite fresh tenders. This decision was communicated by a letter dated 12th/14th November, 2008, a copy of which is available with the Petitioner and has been annexed to the writ petition.

.7. The letter dated 12th/14th November, 2008 is challenged by the Petitioner and, therefore, it is necessary to quote the contents of this letter, which reads as follows: ‘AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA No.COM/917/1/SR/2007/2159 November 12/14 2008 FAX/PCC The Regional Executive Director Airports Authority of India Western Region MUMBAI. The Airport Director Airports Authority of India Chennai Airport CHENNAI Subject: Licence for operation of Ball / Balloon Lights at airports Sir, This is with reference to the correspondence resting with this office letter of even No. (1173-1176) dated 16/18th June, 2008 in regard to the subject licence presently being operated on an experimental basis at Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Chennai airports. The Commercial Advisory Board in its 164th Meeting held on 7th June, 2008 was informed that in response to the tender action initiated at the above three airports, one of the participants had filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and

.pending outcome of the Court’s decision, the opening of the financial bids / award of the contract was kept in abeyance. It was then decided to allow the existing licensee viz. M/s Fantasy Lights who is also one of the participant in the above tenders to continue on payment of licence fee @ Rs.42,000/-per month that is at par with the licence fee quoted by them at Jaipur Airport, till tenders are finalized. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document