RD SHETTY V INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

This case is related to the issues raised in a tender invited by the International
Airport Bombay, which is a corporate body constituted under the International
Airport Authority Act,43 of 1971. The case was filed by one of the tenderer who
participated in the tender proceedings. The petitioner’s tender was not accepted as
it was not accompanied by an affidavit of immovable property held by him and
solvency certificates. The higher amount offered by the 4th respondent herein was
accepted even after the required criteria in the invited tender was not fulfilled.

The main contention urged on behalf of the appellant was that as per the tender
“ Sealed tenders in the prescribed form are hereby invited from Registered IInd
Class Hoteliers having 5 years’ experience ”. The 1st respondent had accepted the
tender of the 4th respondent instead of rejecting the tender who is not fulfilled the
above said terms. One interested thing is that the appellant was also not a
Registered IInd class hotelier with 5 years’ experience. The appellant also urged
that the first respondent, being a State within the meaning of Art.12 of the
constitution or in any event a public authority, was bound to give effect to the
condition of eligibility set up by it and was not entitled to depart from it at its own
sweet will without rational justification.

The grievance of the appellant, it may be noted, was not that his tender was
rejected as a result of improper acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondents,
but that he was differentially treated and denied equality of opportunity with the 4t
respondents in submitting the tender. His complaint was that if it were known that
non-fulfilment of the condition of the eligibility would be no bar to consideration of a
tender, he also would have submitted a tender and competed for obtaining
contract.

The Hon’ble Court found that the action taken of the 1st respondent in accepting the
tender of the 4th respondents, even though they did not satisfy the prescribed
condition of eligibility, was clearly discriminatory, since it excluded other person
similarly situate from tendering for the contract and it was plainly arbitrary and
without reason. The acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondents was, in the
circumstances invalid as being violative of the equality clause of the Constitution as
also of the rule of administrative law inhibiting arbitrary action.

Even though the Hon’ble Court opined as above the Court dismissed the appeal filed
by the appellant stating that the appellant had no real interest in the result of the
litigation. There can be no doubt that the litigation was commenced by the
appellant not with a view to protection of his own interest, but had been put up by
others for depriving the 4th respondents of the benefit of the contract secured by
them. The Writ Petition was filed more than 5 months after the acceptance of the
tender of the 4th respondents and expenditure was made by the 4th respondents for
his business. The Court also held that, the position would have been different if the
appellant had filed the writ petition immediately after the acceptance of the tender
of the 4th respondents but the appellant allowed a period of over 5 months to elapse
during which the 4th respondents altered their position. In those circumstances the
Hon’ble Court found that the case is not a fit case in which the Court should
interfere and grant relief to the appellant in the exercise of Court’s discretion under
Article 136 read with Article 226 of the Constitution.