AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus CENTRE FOR AVIATION POLICY, SAFETY & RESEARCH (CAPSR) & OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
v.
CENTRE FOR AVIATION POLICY, SAFETY & RESEARCH
(CAPSR) & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6615-6616 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
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;
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 451
451
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 2 SCR 297
referred to
Para 3.1
[2013] 12 SCR 529
relied on
Para 3.6
[2004] 2 SCR 1010
relied on
Para 3.6
[2009] 6 SCR 663
relied on
Para 3.6
[2012] 8 SCR 128
relied on
Para 3.6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6615-
6616 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2021 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 5722 of 2020.
K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Vinayak Sharma, Shubham Seth, Mrinal
Choudhry, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs. for the Appellant.
Umakant Mishra, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Sachin Patil,
Siddharth Dharamadhikari, Geo Joseph, Durgesh Gupta, Aaditya
Aniruddh Pande, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5722 of 2020, by which the High Court,
in exercise of its powers 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
for the purpose of the impugned tender/RFP and the revised minimum
Annual Turnover criteria of INR 18 crores as discriminatory and arbitrary,
the Airport Authority of India (for short, ‘AAI’) has preferred Civil Appeal
No. 6615/2022. The subsequent order dated 24.09.2021 rejecting the
review application being Review Petition No. 150/2021 to review and
recall the final judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 5722/
2020 is also the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 6616/2022.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under:
The appellant herein – AAI floated a Request for Proposal (for
short, ‘RFP’)/tender for concessio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.