Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
Ground Handling Association – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C.S.Dias, J.
The writ petitions are filed by existing ground handling agencies challenging Ext.P4 addendum published by the Cochin International Airport Limited, modifying the conditions in Ext.P3 tender notification. The petitioner in W.P (C) No.29297/2024 is a society of eight ground handling agencies, and the petitioners in W.P (C) No.29700/2024 are three existing ground handling companies. The respondents in the writ petitions are (1) the Ministry of Civil Aviation, (2) the Directorate of Civil Aviation, and (3) the Cochin International Airport Limited (‘CIAL’, in short), a scheduled commercial international airport. The fourth respondent has got itself impleaded in the writ petitions stating that they propose to participate in the tender. As the parties are the same and disputes are common, the writ petitions are consolidated, jointly heard, and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners’ case
2.1. The common case of the petitioners in the two writ petitions are as follows:
2.2. CIAL had published Ext.P3 tender notification on 10.7.2024, inviting bids from eligible agencies to be appointed as second and third ground handling agencies to provide third- party grou
The court upheld the authority of CIAL to modify tender conditions for ground handling services, emphasizing the need for a competitive environment and the absence of established conflicts of interes....
Tender – Terms and conditions of Invitation to Tender are within domain of tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, same being in realm of contract, unless they are arb....
scope of the judicial review in contractual matters is quite limited. The legal position is settled that judicial review is not so much concerned with the correctness of the ultimate decision as it i....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Point of Law : Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts or the Tender Scrutiny Committee, which has scrutinized and found the 3rd respondent to be responsive and had to be awarded the contract....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
