IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Airport Authority of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 14459 of 2021 & CM Appl. 45529 of 2021, CM Appl. 45530 of 2021, CM Appl. 40612 of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bidding requirements and history of rfp (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on irrational rfp cancellation (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. judicial review scope over tendering authority (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal principles governing tender authority decisions (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. respondent's justification for tender cancellation (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. dismissal of writ petition (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. In the instant Writ Petition, this Court will determine whether the decision of the Airports Authority of India ("Respondent No. 1") to cancel of Request for Proposal ("RFP") for inter alia, operating and maintaining the Food & Beverage Outlets at Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur, after the Petitioner, i.e Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited, had emerged as the highest bidder, is sustainable in law.
2. The Petitioner has placed on record the following facts:
a. In 2020 and early 2021, the Respondent No. 1 issued Request for Proposals for inter alia, operating and maintaining the Food & Beverage Outlets at Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur bearing requirements for minimum monthly guarantees of Rs. 40,18,888/- and Rs. 31,34,225/-. However, there were no bidders for the RFP.
b. Thereafter, in 2021, the Respondent issued an RFP for inter alia, operating and maintaining the Food & Beverage Outlets at Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur. This time the minimum monthly guarantee was of Rs. 28,20,805/-.
c. The Petitioner submitted its technical and financial bid on 15.07.2021 for the RFP. The Petitioner's bid was found to be technically compliant. Thereafter, on 13.08.2021, it emerged that the Petitioner was the highest bidder, having bid a sum of Rs. 29,25,555/-.
d. It is the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 1 issued a Commercial Circular No. 42/2021 bearing F. No. Cl-11041/42/2020-Commercial/224, laying down guidelines for commercial contracts having periodicity of three year or more. The following was laid down in the said circular:
"In such a scenario, if the quote received is more than the MRLF, the same may be processed as per codal procedure. In case of NIL response in such tender, subsequent action for reduction in MRLF may not be taken and interim arrangement may be made for utilisation of space till new tender is finalised and even if reduction of MRLE has been approved by competent authority, same may be brought to earlier level after reconsideration with the approval of Competent Authority and then tender may be invited in Jan, 2022 onwards.
Where tenders have been invited on reduced MRLF:
- In such a scenario, financial bid may be opened:
- if the quote received is equal to or more than the Original MRLF (without reduction), the same may be processed as per codal procedure.
- If the quote received is lesser than the original MRLF (without reduction), the same may be considered on NPV basis and if differences is within 10% with original MRLF then it can be considered or else tender may be cancelled & fresh tender be initiated post 31.12.2021."
(emphasis supplied)
e. Thereafter, to the shock of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 1 vide Letter dated 24.11.2021, cancelled the RFP in question ("Impugned Letter"), citing the following reason:
"... Your proposal for above RFP has not been considered by Competent Authority as per CHO Commercial Circular No. 42 I 2021 dt.28.09.2021" "Guidelines in respect of tenders for commercial contracts having periodicity of Three Years or more" Hence, the RFP. No. 202l_AAJ_79928_1 is being cancelled due to administrative reason and fresh RFP will be invited as per guideline for CHQ."
f. Aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent No. 1 to cancel the LOAI, and issue the Impugned Letter, the Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition.
3. In sum and substance, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the decision of the Respondent No. 1 to cancel the RFP is irrational, illegal and unlawful. Consequently, it has been p
A successful bidder in a tender process does not have a vested right to the contract, and the tendering authority can cancel bids based on commercial prudence.
The highest bidder in a tender process does not have a vested right to award, as cancellation must align with commercial prudence and is permissible under administrative discretion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a tender based on reasons unrelated to the business of the petitioner and without a fair opportunity of hearing is violativ....
The cancellation of a tender by a public authority is valid if it is based on informed considerations regarding competitive pricing, allowing the authority to reject bids without justification.
The procuring entity has the discretion to cancel tenders and re-invite bids without prior communication of reasons; judicial review is limited to assessing arbitrariness or statutory violations in p....
The authority's interpretation of tender conditions is paramount, and non-compliance with explicit requirements justifies cancellation of bids.
The tender inviting authority has the right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the bidding process at any time prior to the award of contract without assigning any reason.
The authority may cancel a tender without reason if lack of competition is evident; bidders have no enforceable rights without formal acceptance of their bids.
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.