UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR ANNUAL MOOT COURT 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF J AND K AND

LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

Writ Petition under (CIVIL) NO_2024

IN THE CASE OF:

Mr. Waseem……………….……….……………………… PETITIONER

V.

Srinagar Airport Authority……………………….….RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTORITIES

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES

ARGUMENTS

PRAYER
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

 Builders Association of India v. Union of India (2024)

 KCC Infra Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr
(2024)

 P. Ravishankar v. State of Tamilnadu (2021)

 Harminder Singh Arora v. Union Of India And Others (1986)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

May it please your lordship

The respondent most humbly submits as under:

 The Srinagar International Airport authority issued a tender for the

establishment of a hotelier within the airport premises.

 They provided criteria for applicants, some of which were communicated

after the submission deadline had passed.

 Mr. Waseem, a potential applicant, did not submit an application because

he believed he was ineligible based on one of the conditions that were
later deleted.

 Upon discovering that the condition which rendered him ineligible had
been removed by the authorities, Mr. Waseem became aggrieved by the
actions of the airport authority.
ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether administrative discretion was exercised properly or was it arbitrary ?

ARGUMENT

The revision of eligibility criteria in the tender process was a policy decision
taken by the Airport Authority to ensure the effective conduct of tenders. This
decision falls within the purview of the authority's discretion in setting terms for
the tender process.

The eligibility criteria were revised to ensure the best equipment and services
for the passengers and public safety. The Airport Authority, in its capacity as a
public entity, has the responsibility to prioritize public interest and safety in its
decisions regarding tender processes.

The revised eligibility criteria were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.
They were formulated by a committee consisting of experienced individuals
who carefully considered various aspects, including safety concerns and public
interest, before making the revisions.

The decisions of various courts, including the Supreme Court of India,

emphasize that the terms of a tender document and awarding of contracts should
be left to the discretion of the State authorities unless found to be malicious or a
misuse of statutory powers. Courts should only interfere if the decision-making
process is arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory.

The Airport Authority ensured a fair, equal, and non-discriminatory evaluation

of tenders, in line with the principles established by judicial precedents. The
eligibility criteria were set to ensure that only qualified and capable contractors
participate in the tender process.

The Airport Authority's decision-making process should be viewed in the

context of transparency and adherence to guidelines. Any violation of guidelines,
if proven, could be a valid ground for challenging the tender process. However,
in this case, there is no evidence to suggest a violation of transparency norms.

The airport authority has the discretion to set the terms of the tender and
eligibility criteria, and courts usually do not interfere unless the actions of the
authority are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. This principle is supported
by various legal precedents:
 Builders Association of India v. Union of India (2024): The Supreme Court
held that the power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in
the allotment of contracts is subject to judicial review only if the action is
shown to be malafide, arbitrary, discriminatory, or biased.

 KCC Infra Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr
(2024): The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must concede greater
latitude to state authorities in formulating tender conditions and awarding
contracts. Interference by the court is not warranted unless the tendering
authority's actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.

 P. Ravishankar v. State of Tamilnadu (2021): The court held that the

government and its undertakings must have a free hand in setting the terms
of the tender. Courts will only interfere if the terms are arbitrary,
discriminatory, mala fide, or biased.

 Harminder Singh Arora v. Union Of India And Others (1986): The court
emphasized that courts do not normally interfere with policy decisions or
challenges to the award of contracts by the state or public authorities. The
court will only intervene if the decision is contrary to public interest,
discriminatory, or unreasonable.
PRAYER:

In light of the arguments presented herein, the Respondent respectfully prays

that this hon’ble High court May:

1. Dismisses the allegations raised by Mr. Waseem regarding the change in

eligibility criteria after the submission deadline

2. Affirms the legality and validity of the airport authority's decision to modify
the eligibility criteria in accordance with relevant regulations and procedures.

3. Upholds the discretion of the airport authority to manage procurement

processes effectively and efficiently.Grants any further relief or remedies
deemed just and equitable in the circumstances of this case.

4. Costs of these proceedings be awarded in favor of the Respondent.

Counsel for respondent