SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Del) 86

MADAN B.LOKUR, SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
Virendra Kapoor Proprietor – Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate
Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate

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 m

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top