This Writ Petition is filed against the bid invitation published by the respondents on 23.02.2017 to award the license for “Exclusive Advertisement Rights”, concession to design, develop, operate and market the advertising opportunity in the entire Airport Estate at Chennai Airport.

2. Though the Writ Petition was filed with the above said prayer indicating that the challenge made against the impugned bid invitation is in respect of all the clauses of the bid invitation in general, however while hearing the Writ Petition for final disposal, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo before this Court dated 20.02.2018 stating that the petitioner is restricting the challenge only to the following five clauses of the tender conditions:

1. Eligibility Criteria contained in Clause 2.2.2(A), 2.2.2(B)(I), 2.2.2(B) II and 2.2.1(d).

2. Exclusivity of Advertisement Rights – Definition of Advertising Rights and Concession, Definition of Airport, Location Layout Plan on Clause 5.1.3 and 5.2.5 read with Clause 1.2.8.

3. Obligation of Passenger facilities contained in Clause 1.2.8.

4. Dispute Resolution in Clause 5.16.

5. New Advertising Venture contained in Clause 5.19, 5.18 & 5.17 & Article 10.6 of draft agreement.

3. Therefore, the facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in their pleadings confined to the above said five Clauses, are extracted hereunder:

(a) The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of Indoor and Outdoor advertisement business. The petitioner is one of the largest concessionaires of Respondents for the non-traffic revenue generation for the last more than three decades, more particularly, in the Advertisement segment. The last of such contract in respect of Chennai International Airport was awarded to the petitioner through an open competition bidding process on 02.04.2007, awarding the license for “Exclusive Advertisement Rights” in respect of Indoor and Outdoor advertising display sites at the entire Airport Estate at Chennai including the International & Domestic terminals. The License Agreement dated 23.04.2007 was entered between the parties for a period of five years, ending 17.04.2012. Thereafter, the license period was repeatedly extended though initially for a short duration, however, finally extended by proceedings dated 27.03.2017 with uncertainty in the period of license.

(b) The respondents have now floated e-tender by issuing “Request for Proposal (RFP)” and publish the same on 23.02.2017. The petitioner, through a communication dated 05.03.2017 highlighted the discretionary, vague and ambiguous Clauses of the RFP and sought for necessary modifications and amendments. The first respondent conducted Vendors' meet on 07.03.2017 and invited additional queries if any from all the vendors for its consideration. The petitioner filed their additional information/queries on 15.03.2017. However, the respondents through communication dated 07.04.21017 replied that RFP Provisions would prevail.

(c) The objection regarding Clause 1.2.8 is that the said Clause mandates provision and thereupon entering into a Service Level Agreement for maintenance of mobile/laptop chargers, Q Managers, security frisking rays, news/entertainment/sports content through TV Channels by the selected concessionaire without even quantifying the requirement as contractual obligation. Provision of these facilities is essentially a passenger facilitation activity and should have been owned by the Respondent. Even if the same is to be passed on to the selected on concessionaire it needs to be atleast quantified and the expected service levels clearly defined and a methodology of recovery of cost of providing these services evolved. In the absence of clarity on any of the issues, the provision is highly arbitrary and ambiguous.

(d) The objections regarding Eligibility Criteria contained in Clause 2 in the memo viz., Exclusivity of Advertisement Rights – Definition of Advertising R