9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the action of Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) in awarding the contract to Air India Ltd. was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the decision-making process of CIAL was influenced by Air India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. 3. Whether the Kerala High Court's Division Bench was correct in treating the case as a public tender and interfering with CIAL's decision. Summary: Issue 1: Arbitrary, Illegal, and Violative of Natural Justice The Supreme Court examined whether CIAL's decision to award the contract to Air India was arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had held that CIAL's action was arbitrary and illegal, stating that the decision was influenced by Air India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. However, the Supreme Court found that CIAL's decision was taken bona fide in the financial and overall interest of CIAL. The Court emphasized that the award of a contract by the State or its instrumentalities is a commercial transaction and that the State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision, including entering into negotiations before finalizing the contract. The Court concluded that CIAL had acted within its rights and had not violated any principles of natural justice. Issue 2: Influence by Air India and Ministry of Civil Aviation Cambatta Aviation Ltd. argued that CIAL's decision was influenced by Air India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had agreed with this contention, stating that CIAL was influenced by the threat that Air India would not allow other flights to land if it was not awarded the contract. The Supreme Court, however, found no evidence of undue influence. It noted that the Board of Directors of CIAL had taken a tentative decision to award the contract to Air India and had called for negotiations to secure better terms. The Court observed that the decision-making process was transparent and that Cambatta had not requested an opportunity to negotiate or improve its offer. Issue 3: Public Tender and High Court's Interference The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had treated the case as a public tender and held that CIAL was bound to treat all tenderers fairly. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that CIAL had invited offers from reputed agencies to decide the best terms and conditions for awarding the contract. The Court emphasized that CIAL was not bound to accept the highest offer and was free to accept the offer that was in its best interest. The Court also noted that the High Court should exercise its discretionary power u/s Article 226 with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in interfering with CIAL's decision. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, and confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge, thereby upholding CIAL's decision to award the contract to Air India.
|
