Statutory actions must be challenged under writ jurisdiction, not civil suits, and established conflict of interest justifies debarment from tenders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Setting-aside of Order dated 8^th April 2024 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Budgam (“Trial Court” hereinafter) in a civil suit titled M/s Saptagari Restaurant Private Limited v. Airport Authority of India and others, allowing ad interim injunction application of respondent (plaintiff before the Trial Court), making threshold interim order dated 21^st December 2023 absolute and keeping Order no.CL-11047/3/2020-COMMERCIAL/238 dated 20^th December 2023 in abeyance till disposal of main suit. Setting-aside of Order dated 21^st December 2023 passed by Trial Court is also being prayed for on the grounds made mention of in instant appeal.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. A civil suit has been filed by M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited – respondent herein, against Airport Authority and its functionaries – appellant herein before Trial Court. In its suit it is stated by plaintiff/ respondent that it is a registered company carrying on business of managing restaurants and other related services for past 23 years, having its registered office at L-332, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi and has been running various food and beverages outlets, restaurants, massage chair facility etc. in the airports all over the country for last two decades. Plaintiff has also stated in his plaint that it is aggrieved of Order no.CL-11047/3/2020-COMMERCIAL/238 dated 20^th December 2023, issued by defendant no.2 (appellant no.2 herein), debarring plaintiff from participating in any future tenders floated by Airport Authority of India (AAI) for three years.

3.1. According to plaintiff/respondent, it participated in a tender process initiated by defendant no.1 (appellant no.1 herein) in Chennai and Amritsar, but defendant no.1 sought to debar plaintiff to participate in tender process at Chennai and Amritsar, ostensibly on the ground that an employee of plaintiff, namely, Karan Singh, Proprietor of M/s Syona Spa, had availed benefits, like ESI PF, etcetera and also an airport- employee-pass was issued to said Karan Singh by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security in the name of M/s Saptagiri Restaurants Private Limited. It was alleged that aforesaid Karan Singh had availed a loan from plaintiff and hence there was a conflict of interest as per the RFP provisions contained in the notice inviting e-tenders and as a corollary whereof in terms of letter dated 30^th November 2022 an explanation was called from plaintiff alleging therein that complaints were received against plaintiff and one M/s Syona Spa regarding participation in tender.

3.2. It is also the case of plaintiff/respondent before the Trial Court that plaintiff immediately tendered a reply dated 5^th December 2022, contending that allegations were baseless and that upon taking into consideration reply filed by plaintiff and after being satisfied that allegations levelled in the complaint were baseless, defendant-AAI proceeded to award tender to plaintiff insofar as tender floated in respect of Amritsar was concerned. In the interregnum, defendant-AAI initiated proceedings against plaintiff insofar as tender pertaining to Chennai Airport is concerned and issued a show cause notice dated 5^th June 2023 asking plaintiff to show cause as to why action should not be taken against plaintiff on the ground of conflict of interest and material misrepresentation.

3.3. It is further case of plaintiff before Trial Court that similar allegations were levelled against plaintiff in show cause notice as were levelled against it in Amritsar. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 5^th June 2023, plaintiff tendered its reply dated 14^th June 2023 in which allegations were strongly refuted and controverted.

3.4. Plaintiff has also averred in his plaint that an illegal order of debarring it in participating in any tenders floated by defendant-AAI at Chennai Airport was issued. Aggrieved whereof, plaintiff filed Writ Petition bearing no.23466 of 2023 before the High