Constitution of India – Article 226 – Judicial scrutiny of eligibility criteria/tender conditions – Scope and ambit of – Held: Respondent no.1 claiming to be a non-profit organisation carrying out research, advisory and advocacy in the field of civil aviation filed writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective Request for Proposal (RFPs) floated by appellant-AAI – None of the Ground Handling Agencies (GHAs) who participated in the tender process and/or could have participated in the tender process challenged the tender conditions – Writ petition before High Court was not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation – Respondent no.1 cannot be said to be an‘‘aggrieved party” – High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of locus standi of respondent no.1 to maintain the writ petition – Further, terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny being in the realm of contract, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide – On merits, AAI explained before the High Court, the rationale behind the respective conditions, namely, clustering of 49 airports into 4 region-wise sub-categories/clusters; criteria for evaluation - 36 months experience in past 7 years in providing 3 out of 7 Core GHS and the financial capacity- Annual Turnover of Rs. 30 crores (modified as Rs. 18 crores) in any one of last three financial years – The respective clauses/conditions cannot be said to be arbitrary and/or mala fide and/or actuated by bias – It was for the AAI to decide its own terms and fix the eligibility criteria – Impugned order set aside – Writ petition filed by respondent no.1 dismissed.
Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East Frontier Railway (2014) 3 SCC 760 : [2013] 12 SCR 529;
Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics
Limited (2004) 4 SCC 19 : [2004] 2 SCR 1010; Meerut Development Authority v. Assn. of Management Studies (2009) 6 SCC 171 : [2009] 6 SCR 663; Michigan
Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216 : [2012] 8 SCR 128 – relied on.
Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai (2008) 5 SCC 217 : [2008] 2 SCR 297 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.