2004 (3) TMI 814 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 in the tender notification.
3. Validity of the grouping of airports.
4. Conditions of eligibility and turnover requirements.
5. Allegations of mala fides and favoritism.
6. Applicability of judicial review in contractual matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the terms and conditions of the tender notification fall within the realm of contract law. The petitioner challenged the grouping of airports and eligibility criteria, claiming it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court noted that the terms of the tender notification cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner contended that the grouping of various airports without reference to their commercial potential and other aspects was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the grouping was done based on advice from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to ensure quality advertisements at smaller airports by clubbing them with larger airports. This was found to be a reasonable classification aimed at achieving international quality advertisements and maximizing revenue.

3. Validity of the Grouping of Airports:
The petitioner argued that the grouping of airports was unconventional and arbitrary. The court found that the grouping was done to ensure that bidders with requisite financial background and experience could bring in quality advertisements to smaller airports, which was a valid commercial consideration. The court concluded that the grouping was perfectly valid and not arbitrary.

4. Conditions of Eligibility and Turnover Requirements:
The petitioner challenged the turnover requirement of 12 months equivalent of the Minimum Reserved Licence Fee (MRLF) as arbitrary and unreasonable. The court held that the conditions were imposed to ensure that only financially sound and experienced bidders could participate, which was necessary for achieving the desired quality of advertisements. The court found the conditions reasonable and within the administrative authority's discretion.

5. Allegations of Mala Fides and Favoritism:
The petitioner alleged that the conditions were tailored to suit the third respondent, who was facing a CBI enquiry. The court found no evidence of mala fides or favoritism in the tender conditions. It held that the decision-making process was rational, relevant, and non-discriminatory, and the conditions were not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

6. Applicability of Judicial Review in Contractual Matters:
The court noted that while the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the decision-making process can be reviewed for arbitrariness, unreasonableness, and mala fides. The court found that the decision to group airports and impose certain eligibility criteria was based on valid commercial considerations and did not warrant interference. The court emphasized that judicial intervention is warranted only when there is overwhelming public interest, which was not the case here.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, with the court finding no reason to interfere in the tender process. The court upheld the grouping of airports and the eligibility criteria as reasonable and within the administrative authority's discretion. The allegations of mala fides and favoritism were found to be baseless, and the decision-making process was deemed rational and non-arbitrary. The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters, emphasizing the need for fairness and non-arbitrariness in state actions.