Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.
Airport Authority of India and Another – Petitioners
Versus
M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
F.A.O. No. 24 of 2023, Caveat No. 2230 of 2023
Decided On : 13-10-2023
Tendering Process - Eligibility - Debarment - Commercial Manual 2019 - Judicial Review
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Budgam, which held the respondent eligible to participate in the tendering process and directed the appellants to open the bids, including that of the respondent, and proceed in terms of relevant provisions of law. The respondent had been debarred from participating in tenders at Chennai and Amritsar Airports, but the debarment orders were stayed by the High Courts of Madras and Punjab and Haryana. The appellants failed to follow the procedure for debarring an agency as outlined in the Commercial Manual 2019. The respondent's bid was not entertained by the appellants, and the respondent's tender bid was still available on the E-portal of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent's debarment by the Airport Directors of Chennai and Amritsar did not automatically debar the respondent from participating in tenders at all airports throughout the country. The Court held that the debarment was between the Airport Directors and the respondent and had not been approved by the competent authority, the chairman of AAI. The Court also found that the appellants' action was discriminatory, biased, and arbitrary. The Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as it lacked merit.
Issues: The main issues were the eligibility of the respondent to participate in the tendering process, the validity of the debarment orders, and the failure of the appellants to follow the procedure for debarring an agency as outlined in the Commercial Manual 2019.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the debarment of the respondent by the Airport Directors of Chennai and Amritsar did not automatically debar the respondent from participating in tenders at all airports throughout the country. The Court also found that the appellants' action was discriminatory, biased, and arbitrary. The Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as it lacked merit.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
JUDGMENT :
MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.
Caveat No. 2230/2023
Heard learned counsel for the caveators. Caveat discharged. FAO No. 24/2023
1. By this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the appellants have invoked the jurisdiction under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby challenging the order dated 08.09.2023, passed in File No. S/280/23 titled as M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited vs. Airport Authority of India and Another, by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Budgam, whereunder two applications have been disposed of, one filed by the respondent/plaintiff for grant of interim relief and other filed by appellants/defendants seeking vacation of the interim order dated 22.08.2023 to the extent of holding respondent/plaintiff therein eligible for participation in the tendering process and also directing appellant No. 2 to open the bids, including that of respondent/plaintiff therein.
Factual matrix of the case:
2. Appellants herein issued notice, inviting e-tender (NIET) for Short-Term License to operate Food and Beverages outlets (SHA) F/F and Arrival at Srinagar, International Airport, Srinagar bearing tender reference No. AAI/SXR/Comml/F&B/400/2023 E-bid No. 2023-AAI-163246 dated 03.08.2023.
3. In response to the tender notice various participants applied. The respondent also submitted his tender which was not updated and amount remitted to the tune of Rs.11.23 lacs towards cost of tender and EMD to the Bank (State Bank of India) in favour of appellants and the transaction was shown as pending on E-portal. The respondent through email dated 10.08.2023 addressed to the appellants, prayed for extension of the last date of submission of bid. The appellants informed respondent on 11.08.2023 through email with the following information:
4. It is stated that while finalizing the tendering process, the appellants on 21.08.2023, observed “under the column of technical bids/opening summary/sub class summary” that four bids have been received, three are admitted and one non-admitted due to debarment action by AAI, Chennai and Amritsar.
5. Being aggrieved of the tender summary report, respondent filed civil suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction before learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Budgam, wherein he had sought various reliefs, more particularly decree of declaration to declare the action of the appellants of debarring the respondent/plaintiff from participating in the tender floated by the appellants as illegal and arbitrary and also a decree of declaration, declaring the debarment orders dated 26.07.2023 and 08.08.2023, issued by appellants at Chennai and Amritsar Airports, not applicable to the tender notice issued by the appellants at Srinagar and also a decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the respondent from debarring him to participate in the tender in question.
6. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Budgam, after consideration of the suit and interim application passed an order dated 22.08.2023, whereby the appellants were directed to allow the respondent/plaintiff to participate in the tendering process in terms of the tender dated 08.03.2023 with further direction to the appellants not to finalize the tendering process without orders of the Court. The appellants filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 22.08.2023 and in opposition to the said application, a detailed reply was filed by the respondent. The appellants also filed detailed written statement in opposition to the main suit and objections to the interim application.
7. It is stated that both the applications were heard and decided in
Statutory actions must be challenged under writ jurisdiction, not civil suits, and established conflict of interest justifies debarment from tenders.
The rejection of the petitioners' bid was justified based on their debarment for supplying substandard quality drugs, in line with the State's policy to keep such manufacturers out of the tender proc....
The court ruled that a tender condition disqualifying bidders based on pending FIRs is unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), emphasizing the presumption of innocence and due process i....
No order of debarment can be made against a party without first issuing a specific show cause notice, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Misrepresentation of facts at the time of bidding amounted to fraudulent practice, justifying the debarment of the joint venture consortium.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to....
The Banning Order by NPCIL constituted a debarment, making Respondent No.2 ineligible to participate in the tenders, as per the eligibility criteria of the tender.
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
