IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Las Ground Force Pvt. Ltd & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Airports Authority Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 5386 of 2021 & CM APPL 16649 of 2021
Decided On : 23-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - (Indian) Companies Act, 2013 - Restoration of Letter of Intent to Award - Penalty for delay in submission of Performance Security/Bank Guarantee - Whether Respondents cancelling LOIA due to Petitioners failure to comply with terms and conditions, justified - Whether force majeure clause provides relief to the Petitioners from their contractual obligations - Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 in Mumbai. It is engaged in handling ground services offered to airlines at Airports. The Petitioner No. 2 is also a company registered under Companies Act, 2013 in Goa and is a Joint Venture (JV) company/SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) of Petitioner No.1 and its consortium partner to perform contractual obligations under tenders awarded to the consortium as a Concessionaire.
Finding of the court : It is clear that the Petitioners were constantly making excuses leading to an inordinate delay in fulfilling their contractual obligations. We are of the view that the Respondent authority has acted fairly and reasonably and the Petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the conduct of the Petitioner leaves a lot to be Desired - The Respondents herein did not make the particular decision to favour someone, and it was squarely within the terms and provision of the RFP and LOIA - Petitioners have failed to make a case for the same. In February, when the Bank Guarantees had to be submitted, the second wave of the pandemic had still not hit the nation - Conduct of the Petitioners as well as the documents placed on record do not show that the Petitioners did everything within their power to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP and LOIA. The Petitioners have also not been able to justify that the actions of the Respondents were arbitrary, mala fide or unreasonable.
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following substantial reliefs:
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the forfeiture of the Petitioner’s Bid Security, restoring the Petitioner’s Bid Security and restoring the Letter of Intent to Award dated 12.01.2021 issued in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 for the Goa airport;
(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to accept the bank guarantees obtained by the Petitioners in favour of AAI, viz. (i) Bank Guarantee No.1394FB210095 dated 26.02.2021 issued by Axis Bank for Rs. 1,77,54,708/-, and (ii) Bank Guarantee No. 01742IGL0001421 dated 29.04.2021 issued by Union Bank of India for Rs. 3,29,73,029/-, in compliance of Para 6(i) of the LOIA;”
2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
3. That the Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 in Mumbai. It is engaged in handling ground services offered to airlines at Airports. The Petitioner No. 2 is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 in Goa and is a Joint Venture (JV) company/SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) of Petitioner No.1 and its consortium partner Goldair Handling S.A. (based in Greece) to perform contractual obligations under tenders awarded to the consortium as a Concessionaire.
4. The Respondent No.1 is the Airports Authority of India (“AAI”). It is the authority empowered to manage airports across India and to give licenses/concessions to service providers for providing ground handling services in airports across India.
5. The Respondent No.2 is the Executive Director (Operations) of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 is the Airport Director at Goa airport, the person responsible for correspondence and further execution of work on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.
6. In June, 2018, the Respondent No.1 floated a tender for selecting a concessionaire to provide ground handling facilities at Goa airport and various other airports. However, the said tender was cancelled without assigning any reason and a new tender was again floated in August, 2018 for various airports, classified under different groups.
7. Subsequently, this tender was cancelled, and a new tender was floated in November, 2018. The consortium of Petitioner No.1 and Goldair Handling S.A. was selected as the successful bidder for Goa airport and some other airports. However, the said tender was also cancelled 12.06.2019.
8. On 27.01.2020, the Respondent No.1 issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purpose of selecting a concessionaire to provide Ground Handling Facilities and Ground Handling Services at the Goa Airport, managed by the AAI for a period of 10 years. The RFP was revised in response to the bidder queries by Corrigendum No.1 dated 06.03.2020 for Goa and Pune Tender ID: 2020_AAI_41228_1.
9. As per Clause 3.4.4, the selected bidders i.e. the two highest bidders, were each required to incorporate a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) under the (Indian) Companies Act, 2013 as Concessionaires.
10. As per Clause 3.5.9, after selection of the two highest bidders, the AAI would issue a Letter of Intent to Award (LOIA) to the selected bidder for an airport. The process after acknowledgment of LOIA by the selected bi
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
B.S. N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd.
G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K
Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. v. North-East Frontier Railway and Othrs.
Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India
The court affirmed that failure to comply with contractual obligations cannot be excused by force majeure claims where the party did not act with due diligence, emphasizing the need for adherence to ....
The cancellation of a Letter of Acceptance due to an 8-day delay in performance security submission was deemed unreasonable, emphasizing the need for fairness in public contract processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner and the application of principles of natural justice by the respondents.
A tendering authority is justified in cancelling a Letter of Award (LoA) and debarring a bidder for three years if the bidder is negligent in submitting fake bank guarantees.
The invocation of Bank Guarantees must be aligned with contractual terms; unauthorized invocation is deemed arbitrary.
Judicial review is permissible in contractual disputes involving public law elements, but the existence of an arbitration clause limits the scope of such review.
The submission of a bogus Bank Guarantee by a bidder justifies a two-year ban under tender conditions, as the term 'certificate' includes documents.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.