The decision to award a contract for the total management of a vessel to a third respondent on nomination basis was upheld based on national security and confidentiality concerns, and the expertise and track record of the third respondent in managing vessels for various governmental organizations.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the award of contract passed by the second respondent vide the impugned letter No.NIOT/VMC/ABS Corres/13-14, dated 18th October 2013, for grant of total management of the vessel ORV Sagar Nidhi and quash the same including any further proceedings thereto and consequently direct the second respondent to call for fresh tenders for awarding the contract for the total management of the vessel ORV Sagar Nidhi in accordance with the second respondent's previous policy of having separate tenders vide Tender No.NIOT/S&P/VMC/7245/2007-2008 in the year 2007 and Tender No.05/457/2010-11 in the year 2010.

2. Case of the petitioner :

2.1. Petitioner is a reputed company and engaged in the business of offering ship management and managing services for the past 20 years. Its operations and clients are pan India. Petitioner employs a permanent staff of over 80 personnel and has a floating staff of over 300 mariners on its roster. It has obtained all necessary registrations with respect to carrying out its business from the relevant government departments. It has already been duly carrying on the business of manning and management of vessels prior to the contracts of handling the total management of the vessel. In the year 2007, the second respondent came out with an open tender for manning and management of their vessel ORV Sagar Nidhi, in short, "the vessel". The third respondent and the petitioner were two among the various bidders for this prestigious contract and subsequently after all relevant evaluations including the techno- commercial evaluation, the petitioner was declared as the L1 bidder. The vessel was constructed at Fincantieri Shipyard, La Specia, Italy.

2.2. Pursuant to being declared the L1 bidder in 2007, the second respondent and the petitioner entered into a contract for running, manning and maintenance of the vessel. The term of the contract was for a period of three years. The vessel was delivered on 10th December, 2007, and was set sail to India on 16th December, 2007. The vessel was managed very efficiently and effectively. The incident free maiden voyage from Italy to India through the Mediterranean waters, the Suez Canal, Red Sea and Arabian Sea through the high risk piracy areas was indicative of the high standards that the petitioner was known for. The costs for the services and supplies provided by the petitioner were the most competitive in comparison with other similar government vessels of the second respondent, which are being run by the third respondent.

2.3. Subsequently, the second respondent floated a tender in 2010 vide Tender No.05/457/2010-11 on 02.09.2010. Once again, the petitioner was declared the L1 bidder as its tender bid was at least 30% lesser than the quote of the third respondent, as was the case during the first tender. After being declared the L1 bidder, the petitioner entered into a contract with the second respondent on 16.12.2010 for the total management of the vessel for a further period of three years. In the six years of the management of the vessel, there was not a single incident of mishap or report of loss, compromise or any other instance of confidential and proprietary information being compromised.

2.4. When such being the position, the second respondent, vide its letter dated 18.10.2013, informed the petitioner that the management of the vessel is to be handed over to the third respondent on nomination basis on the expiry of the term of contract entered into with the petitioner in 2010. The term of the said contract is to expire on 15th December, 2013. When the petitioner has not been faulted on a single occasion over the last six years, the action of the second respondent in awarding the contract on nomination basis is arbitrary, illegal, violative of law and against public policy and also such an action will defeat the very purpose of laws of t