The court held that the petitioner was not required to submit a no-due certificate as they did not meet the definition of an affiliate or concessionaire under the tender documents.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the records regarding the order contained in the email dated 11.02.2025 and all further proceedings consequent thereto, to quash it and consequently direct the respondents to accept the petitioner's consortium bid dated 21.11.2024 concerning tender No. 2024_AAI_212075_1 dated 21.10.2024 and for other orders.

2. The Writ Petitioner's case is that when the aforementioned tender dated 21.10.2024 was floated, the petitioner submitted a bid. The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of another company named M/s Goldair Handling SA, which is also a member of the consortium. The petitioner relies on its experience and qualifications to qualify technically for the bid. However, after submitting the bid on 01.01.2025, the respondent informed the petitioner via email that they must upload the relevant documents due to a shortfall regarding qualification.

3. Upon reviewing the aforementioned e-mail, the petitioner was instructed to obtain a no-due certificate from the Airports Authority of India at Bagdogra and Udaipur. Consequently, the petitioner reached out to the relevant authorities. In response, the authorities stated that the petitioner, namely, Goldair India Private Limited or its consortium member, M/s Goldair Handling SA, is not a concessionaire for any project, and there is no active contract. Therefore, they indicated that they would not issue a no-due certificate upon the petitioner's request. Subsequently, when this information was presented to the respondent, following an exchange of communications, the impugned order was issued, resulting in the rejection of the petitioner's bid. The grounds on which the petitioner's bid was rejected are extracted below :

“In view of the above, we regret to inform that you are not meeting the required eligibility criteria as per the provisions contained in the RFP, hence not qualified for opening of the Financial bids, due to the following reasons

i. Undertaking with information on contracts with AAl or through contract with Airlines (Non-entities) (Appendix 9A) (S.no 23 as per Appendix -8))- The Consortium have mentioned Nil in appendix 9A submitted through technical bid. But M/s Goldair Handling S.A is part of SPV incorporated by consortium of M/s LAS ground Force Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goldair Handling SA working at Udaipur airport and Bagdogra airport

SPV at Bagdogra and Udaipur airport is undertaking, performing the obligations and exercising the rights of the consortium ie. M/s LAS ground Force Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goldair Handling SA The said consortium after incorporation of SPV is performing, implementing and executing the ground handling services at Udaipur and Bagdogra airport.

ii. No Dues Certificate (Appendix 9B) (S. No 24 as per Appendix -8))- M/s Goldair Handling S.A is part of SPV incorporated by consortium of M/s LAS ground Force Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goldair Handling S.A working at Udaipur airport and Bagdogra airport and the No Dues Certificate for Udaipur airport and Bagdogra airport is not submitted

iii. Declaration with information on contracts with AAl or through contract with Airlines (Non-entities) (Appendix 10) (S.no 23 as per Appendix -8))- The Consortium have mentioned NIL in Appendix 10, submitted through technical bid. But M/s Goldair Handling S.A is part of SPV incorporated by consortium of M/s LAS ground Force Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goldair Handling S.A working at Udaipur airport and Bagdogra airport.”

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition.

4. The petitioner contends that they, as the main bidder or their consortium partner, M/s Goldair Handling SA, are neither the concessionaire nor do they hold a valid or subsisting contract with the Airports Authority of India at Udaipur and Bagdogra. Therefore, the denial of the issuance of the no due certificate is justified. Both the request for the no due certificate and the entries in Appendix 9A and 9B pertain to the same transaction; cons