Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Main contours of the challenge laid in the petition

1. In this writ petition a challenge has been laid to the revised price bid invited by respondent no 2, that is, the Airport Authority of India (in short `AAI') vide its communication dated 4.3.2011. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, it is, in effect, the lowest bidder (hereinafter in short referred to as `L-1') since, respondent No. 3, i.e., Eldis was excluded from the race, so to speak, on account of its technical ineligibility.

1.1 It is, therefore, the contention of the petitioner before us that it was in its capacity as the L-1 it was called for renegotiation of the price by the AAI, on 19.11.2010 which, resulted in scaling down of its offer by Rs. 125 lacs.

1.2 It is for these reasons that the second prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus qua the respondents, seeking thereby a direction to them, to issue a Letter of Award (in short `L.O.A') with regard to the tender in issue, being tender No. (CNS-P)-12/2009-10 (hereinafter referred to in short as the `Tender').

1.3 It is therefore the contention of the petitioner that the impugned communication dated 4.3.2011, whereby the AAI has called for revised bids, is nothing but a ploy to re-induct in the fray respondent No. 3, by ostensibly confining the invitation to those who had qualified both the eligibility and the technical criteria laid out in the Tender.

1.4 It is the say of the petitioner that it is because of this reason that respondent No. 3 i.e., Eldis and respondent No. 4, i.e., Raytheon Canada Radar Systems (in short `Raytheon') are in the fray; whereas the communication dated 19.11.2010 and, the events which led up to it, would show that it was the only entity which had met every criteria put in place by the respondents, and thus, ought to have been logically issued a LOA.

PARTIES

2. Before we proceed further we may indicate that for the sake of convenience that we would be referring to main parties by their names, albeit in abbreviated forms. Therefore, the petitioner being Thales Air Systems S.A. would be referred to as TAS; the Respondent No. 1, i.e., Union of India as UOI, Respondent No. 2, i.e., Airport Authority of India as AAI; Respondent No. 3, i.e., Eldis as Eldis, and lastly Respondent No. 4, i.e., Raytheon Canada Radar Systems as Raytheon.

FACTS

3. In order to appreciate the contentions of parties and the challenge made in the petition it may be necessary to refer to the background in which disputes have emerged inter-se the parties.

3.1 On 16.12.2009, the UOI had issued a global tender inviting bids for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of eight (8) co-located airport surveillance radar (ASR) with mono-pulse secondary surveillance radar (MSSR) Mode-S (collectively referred to as `radars') in respect of airports situate at Amritsar, Chennai, Cochin, Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi.

3.2 The purpose being, while for the first four (4) airports (referred to hereinabove) one (1) radar each would be necessary, as regards Mumbai and Delhi, offers were invited for two (2) radars each. The Tender, adverted to the fact that the estimated cost for purchase of the said radars would be Rs. 225.50 crores and, that each bidder would be required to deposit earnest money equivalent to Rs. 2,50,50,000/-.

3.3 Apart from other conditions the eligibility criteria as also the tendering procedure, was laid out in the Tender. As per clause 5.2 to 5.5 each bidder was required to submit its tender by way of three (3) envelopes marked A, B and C respectively. Envelope `A' was to contain eligibility requirements as per the stipulated conditions contained in the Tender; envelope `B' similarly, was required to contain the technical bid; and lastly, in envelope `C', the bidder was required to put in its price bid as per the format given in annexure `I'. Importantly, clause 5.5.5. of the Tender clearly stipulated that any information found missing would result in the bid being rej