J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the award of contract for upgrade of 319 Bus Queue Shelters (hereinafter referred to as BQS for both singular and plural) and installation of BQS on 100 new locations across Delhi and for operating, maintaining & marketing advertisement spaces on these 419 BQS for a period of 20 years (extendable by 5 years)- to respondent no.3 on nomination basis in the month of June 2012.

2. When the petitioner initially preferred this writ petition, the petitioner sought for the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, thereby quashing the “Request for proposal” and tender for “uplifting, cleaning & maintenance of Existing Bus Queue Shelters on as is where is basis with 100 New Shelters to be installed In lieu of Advertisement rights”, N.I.T. No. 12, F3(1)A/TCD/ISBT/2012-

13/203 dated 13.06.2012;

(b) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, thereby quashing the all Build-Operate-Transfer contracts in respect of Bus-Queue- Shelters by Respondents 1 & 2 granted on nomination basis and direct the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to float public tender in respect thereof;” (emphasis supplied)

3. During the course of the proceedings, on 06.09.2012 – in view of the statement of the learned counsel of respondent No. 2 that all bids, including that of the petitioner with respect to the aforementioned tender have been found to be technically qualified, the petitioner chose to confine the relief in the present petition to prayer (b) only, as extracted above.

4. The petitioner herein, a subsidiary of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., is engaged, inter alia, in the business of displaying advertisements on various outdoor medium including, but not limited to, advertisement spaces at various airports, BQS, hoarding sites etc. It claims to have been certified by the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST)

for showing good performance in installing and maintaining BQS; and by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) for successfully performing Build Operate Transfer (BOT) contracts in respect of BQS and recognising its performance as being at par with „International excellent standards‟.

5. Respondent no. 2/GNCTD owns bus stops/shelters in Delhi and has established respondent no. 1-DTIDC, a 100% owned company of respondent no. 2, to enter into concession agreements with interested entities for management and maintenance of BQS.

6. Respondent no. 3 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 claims to be a part of the multinational conglomerate of „JCDecaux‟ Group of Companies. It is stated to be engaged in the business of providing outdoor advertising services in India and various other countries.

Petitioner’s Submissions

7. It is the petitioner‟s case that respondent nos. 1 & 2 have consistently acted arbitrarily and indiscriminately in awarding BOT contracts in respect of BQS. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Krishnendu Datta submits that, while in some cases, the said respondents chose to float tenders, in the present case, the respondents preferred to grant contract on nomination basis.

8. Mr. Datta places reliance upon the „Performance Audit Report‟ on the Commonwealth Games-2010 of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG), wherein it has been observed that for getting 1500 BQS constructed before the Games, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and respondent No. 1 resorted to various methods of execution, which indicated arbitrariness, ad hocism and lack of clarity in implementation.

9. Mr. Datta submits that respondent nos. 1 & 2 have doled out state largess for extraneous considerations and awarded a lucrative contract to respondent No.3 – a private entity, on nomination basis, without floating a public tender or even a limited tender. The petitioner s