Case Law Details
Airport Authority of India Vs Centre for Aviation Policy (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that an NGO could not have filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court as it do not have any locus standi in present facts of the case as it was not an “aggrieved party”. Also, it was observed that the 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, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Appeal was filed against the Judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi wherein the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has allowed the said writ petition and has struck down the decision to carry out region-wise sub-categorisation of the 49 airports falling under Group D-1; the stipulation that only previous work experience in respect of providing GHS to scheduled aircrafts shall be considered acceptable for the purpose of the impugned tender/RFP and the revised minimum Annual Turnover criteria of INR 18 crores as discriminatory and arbitrary.
The appellant herein – AAI floated a Request for Proposal (for short, ‘RFP’)/tender for concession of ground handling services at Group ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ airports owned by it on 01.05.2018. The appellant herein – AAI also floated a RFP/tender for concession of ground handling services at Group ‘D’ airports owned by it on 02.05.2018. That the RFP for Group ‘D’ airports was modified multiple times and finally republished as Corrigendum No. 21. However, subsequently, vide letter dated 10.06.2019, AAI cancelled the tender earlier floated for Group ‘D’ airports. That thereafter, the AAI published a fresh RFP on 28.07.2020 for Group ‘D1’ airports. The respective RFPs contained the eligibility criteria which include the technical and financial qualifications.
Respondent No.1 herein – Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the eligibility criteria and the respective RFPs with respect to Group ‘C’, ‘D1’ and ‘D2’ airports on the ground that the eligibility criteria contained in the RFPs are not only a radical departure from the past, but also stipulate onerous technical and financial qualifications.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
