Judicial review in tender matters is limited, emphasizing the principles of non-arbitrariness and fair play while maintaining the commercial discretion of tender authorities, especially in international commercial contexts.

ORDER :

1. Questioning the validity and constitutionality of the Request for Proposal dated 01.01.2026 calling for E-Bid for establishment of Duty Free Shop within the precincts of the airport, floated by the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under:-

The petitioners 1 and 2 formed a consortium by entering into a Joint Bidding Agreement dated 10.02.2026 for the purpose of participating in the Request for Proposal (for short ‘RFP’) issued on behalf of the Airports Authority of India (for short ‘AAI’) by the 3^rd respondent on the direct respondent for Development, Operation and Maintenance of Duty-Free Outlets at Chennai Airport.

3. It is the averment of the petitioners that RFP dated 01.01.2026 bearing E-Bid No.2026_AAI_261228_1, was floated inviting bids for Development, Operation and Maintenance of Duty-Free Outlets at Chennai Airport with a clear mention that queries could be submitted by the prospective bidders in the CPP portal by 30.01.2026. It is the further case of the petitioners that by email dated 16.01.2026, it was brought to the notice of AAI that the online tender portal was not allowing the 1st petitioner to submit queries and, therefore, the queries are being sent by email, to which reply email dated 19.01.2026 was issued by AAI expressing its inability to respond to the queries of the 1^st petitioner as the timeline for resolving the queries had lapsed and pointing out that the reply submitted to the queries submitted by the other intending bidders could be used by the petitioners.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that Corrigendum-1 was issued by AAI dated 23.01.2026 along with revised timelines for submission of bids and opening of technical bids on 20.02.2026. Further, response to the queries of respondents 4 to 8 were also uploaded on 23.01.2026 by AAI. The 1^st petitioner, through its mail dated 30.01.2026 sought extension of timelines for raising queries in view of the extension of timelines for submission of bids and by Corrigendum-2 dated 2.2.2026, AAI responded to the queries of the 1st petitioner. However, AAI, through the aforesaid communication had not meaningfully addressed the queries raised by the prospective bidders, inspite of the glaring constitutional, operational and commercial infirmities highlighted in the pre-bid queries relating to RFP. However, AAI refused to modify any material terms of the RFP, but the response of AAI has only been highhanded and evasive and the critical questions raised by the 1st petitioner have not been addressed, which clearly demonstrates that AAI is intent on proceeding the tender without addressing the fundamental viability concerns.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that even to the queries raised by the other bidders, viz., respondents 4 to 8, AAI has met the concerns raised with evasive and non-committal answers, which clearly shows that AAI has no intention of regularizing the RFP nor explain its position on the terms contained in the RFP. Therefore, left with no other viable alternative, the petitioners have been constrained to file the present writ petition.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitt