SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
M/s.Omega Enterprises, Rep. by its Sole Proprietor Mr. Ramiah - Petitioner
Versus
Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rep. by its Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 17825 of 2018 and W.M.P. Nos. 21131, 21132 and 36584 of 2018
Decided On : 26-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.ARL.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Kasirajan.
For the Respondents: Dr. Fr. A. Xavier Arulraj, Senior Counsel.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 Article 226 – quash - Claim to be aggrieved parties - Petitioner has been handling parking managements both in passengers and cargo airports for several years in almost all airports spreaded over India third respondent called for E-tender for license for management of car/truck parking services Integrated Air Cargo complex and allied areas AAICLAS Chennai Airport vide Reference petitioner submitted their E-tender along with necessary fees - There were two other bidders apart from petitioner followed all procedures and submitted all required documents with tender application - After scrutinizing E-tenders submitted by all three Airport Authorities had accepted petitioners technical bid while rejecting the other two tenderers for reason that they have not submitted documents as per notice inviting tender - After finalizing technical bid petitioners financial bid was also opened and same was also accepted by Authorities –Held, Court have already pointed out that reasons stated by the tender inviting authority to cancel tender is justifiable as admittedly there was no price competition - Therefore such cancellation based on such reason cannot be construed as capricious arbitrary or prejudiced decision - In very same decision Apex Court extracted finding rendered in Anil Kumar case reported in effect that notwithstanding fixation of upset price and notwithstanding that bidder has offered an amount higher than reserve/upset price sale still open to challenge on ground that the property has not fetched proper price and that sale be set aside - Therefore Court find that above decision is also not helping the petitioner in any manner unreported decision of Orissa High Court is also relied on by petitioner side to contend that the cryptic order of cancellation without assigning any reason cannot be sustained –Court do not think that the petitioner is entitled to canvas such point in view of admitted position that tender condition as extracted supra empowers tender inviting authority to reject tender without assigning any reason especially when petitioner has participated in the tender process after accepting the terms and conditions of the tender which includes above condition as well - Petition dismissed

ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the cancellation of e-tender reference No.AAICLAS/MAA/3309/2018 dated 25.06.2018 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and directing the respondent to award the tender in favour of the petitioner since he is the highest bidder.

The present writ petition is filed against the proceedings of the third respondent dated 25.06.2018 in canceling the tender issued for the work of granting license for management of car/truck parking service at Integrated Air Cargo Complex and Allied areas, AAICLAS at Chennai Airport. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to award the tender in their favour, being the highest bidder.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

    The petitioner has been handling parking managements both in passengers and cargo airports for several years in almost all airports spreaded over India. The third respondent called for E-tender for license for management of car/truck parking services at Integrated Air Cargo complex and allied areas, AAICLAS, Chennai Airport vide Reference No.AAICLAS/MAA/3309/2018. The petitioner submitted their E-tender on 19.05.2018 along with necessary fees. There were two other bidders apart from the petitioner. The petitioner followed all the procedures and submitted all the required documents with a tender application. After scrutinizing the E-tenders submitted by all the three tenderers, the Airport Authorities had accepted the petitioner's technical bid on 22.06.2018, while rejecting the other two tenderers for the reason that they have not submitted documents as per notice inviting tender. After finalizing the technical bid on 22.06.2018, the petitioner's financial bid was also opened and the same was also accepted by the Authorities. The petitioner has quoted a sum of Rs.40,10,940/- per month, which is much higher than the basic price of Rs.33,52,500/- fixed by the Authorities. Once the financial bid is accepted, the tender process has become final. The petitioner had executed and submitted an affidavit as required by the third respondent describing the details of their contracts at Airports/offices controlled by the Airport Authority of India. After finalising the financial bid, the third respondent forwarded the tender documents to the second respondent for issuing necessary orders. However, in the website of the third respondent, it was noted that the subject matter tender has been cancelled followed by returning the earnest money deposited by the petitioner. The third respondent also sent a letter to the petitioner on 25.06.2018 stating that the subject tender is cancelled. Such cancellation is without any notice, reasonable cause or reason. After canceling the E-tender, the third respondent called for new E-tender on 02.07.2018. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The second and third respondents filed a counter affidavit.

4. The case of the respondents is as follows:

    It is true that the set off price for tender was fixed to Rs.33,52,500/-. It is also admitted that the financial bid of the petitioner was Rs.40,10,940/-. The other two tenderers, who participated in the tender, did not qualify even in the technical bid and thus, the financial bid of the petitioner could not be accepted, as there was no competitive pricing. The tender bid of the petitioner was not accepted as per general information/guidelines and specific instructions of the notice inviting tender. The third respondent is well within its right to cancel the tender at any stage and the petitioner has no vested right to demand acceptance. After canceling the tender, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was also returned to them. There is no necessity to issue a separate notice to the petitioner before canceling the tender, as the cancellation was more in the public interest and from the revenue p

                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                          7
                          8
                          9
                          10
                          11
                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                          supreme today icon
                          logo-black

                          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

                          qr

                          Scan Me!

                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                          whatsapp-icon Back to top