Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS case is that he is an allottee of a Travellers Requisite Shop (for short trs ) at Airbus Departure for almost 46 years, which allotment has been renewed in his favour by the defendant No. l from time to time. The plaintiff has been running the shop in terms of the policy laid down by defendant No. l and the plaintiff has been carrying out/obeying all the directions of defendant No. l. On expiry of the each term of the licence, it is alleged by the plaintiff that as a matter of practice/policy the extension/ renewal of licence is finalised by defendant No. l in the manner as stated in para 19 of the plaint that though initial tenders are invited but in view of the long experience acquired by the plaintiff, negotiations are held with the plaintiff that whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to make payment of rent as determined by defendant No. l. Licence is thereafter renewed in the name of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff is ready and willing to make the payment of the rent as determined by defendant No. l.

( 2 ) IN the aforementioned background, it is alleged that on 28. 1. 1991 an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. l regarding extension of licence in respect of the Shop which period came to an end on 25. 2. 1994. Defendant No. l thereafter issued notice inviting tenders. As per terms of the notice eligibility criteria for participants was three years experience of running similar business and being an income tax assessee for the last one year in similar trade for which experience has been claimed. Tendered documents, duly complete in all respects were required to be submitted on or before 11. 3. 1994. Two tender box meant for envelope A and envelope B, were required to be kept in the office of Senior Commercial Manager. Tenderers were required to put the envelopes separately. Envelope A containing basic documents, were required to be opened in the presence of the tenderers on 11. 3. 1994 at 1530 hrs. , envelope B containing rates quoted were to be opened thereafter on 15. 3. 1994 at 1530 hours in the presence of tenderers. Envelope A, which was required to be opened was to contain basic documents specified therein and tenderers not submitting all documents, stated and required to be accompanied in envelope A were to be treated as disqualified and their tender was not stand rejected.

( 3 ) IT is the plaintiffs case that he and one M/s Goel Enterprises qualified since in their case envelopes A were found to be perfect and in order. Documents in case of defendant No. 2 were not found to be in order. Accordingly, envelope A of defendant No. 2 was rejected, being short of three documents; income tax clearance certificate, partnership deed and certificate/details of experience. Quotations of the plaintiff and M/s Goel Enterprises were duly opened on 15. 3. 1994. Quotation of defendant No. 2 was rightly not opened on 15. 3. 1994 neither it had the requisite experience, nor did it qualify or fulfilled the mandatory qualifications contained in envelope A. During April, 1994 the plaintiff came to know that officials of defendant No. I were intending to bye-pass the standard norm regarding terms and conditions and were intending to open the tender of defendant No. 2. Accordingly the plaintiff made representation on 26. 4. 1994 to the Chairman of defendant No. l offering to pay a higher rent. Chairman of defendant No. l, considered the representation of the plaintiff and extended the licence in respect of the shop through letter dated 7. 7. 1994. Plaintiffs case is that the offer of defendant No. l in granting extension in the period of licence as contained in defendant No. l s letter dated 7. 7. 1994 was accepted by the plaintiff on 15. 7. 1994. On 19. 7. 1994 it was conveyed to the plaintiff by defendant No. l that the shop has been allotted in favour of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff was called upon to hand over the shop on or before 4. 8. 1994. This action of de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document