M/S Aroon Food Services PVT. LTD. vs. Airports Authority Of INDIA

Facts

M/s Aroon Food Services Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its technical bid for a Master Concession to operate Food and Beverage outlets at Biju Patnaik International Airport, Bhubaneswar. The Airports Authority of India (Opposite Party No.1) and its Airport Director (Opposite Party No.2) issued letters dated 17.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 rejecting the Petitioner's technical bid. Subsequently, the contract was awarded to Opposite Party No.3 on 21.05.2021. The Petitioner had submitted its bid in response to a Request For Proposal (RFP) dated 2021_AAI_70823_1. The Petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary and based on misinterpretation of tender conditions, while the Opposite Parties maintained the rejection was justified based on non-compliance with tender requirements.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had not demonstrated arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority. The Petitioner had not satisfied the conditions stipulated in the tender documents. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including Tata Cellular, Cochin International Airport Ltd., Directorate of Education, Association of Registration of Plates, Global Energy, Puravankara Projects Limited, Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd, and Galaxy Transport Agencies, which emphasize that terms and conditions of a tender are within the discretion of the tendering authority, and courts should not interfere unless there is malice, arbitrariness, or illegality. The author of the tender document is the best person to understand its requirements, and their interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review. The Court found no material to interfere with the reasons assigned for rejecting the Petitioner's technical bid. Consequently, the letters/orders rejecting the technical bid and the consequential award of the contract were held to be justified. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid by Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 was arbitrary and without application of mind, particularly concerning the alleged non-submission of details and documents regarding domestic and international brands, as per Clause 2.13.6(b) of the RFP and Instruction-2? - Petitioner's argument: Technical Form-4, which required a certificate regarding affiliate equity, was scored out by the Petitioner as inapplicable, as it held no equity in other bidders. Technical Form-7, regarding proposed capital expenditure, was compliant as the Petitioner submitted the required expenditure per sq. mt., and a detailed list of equipment was not mandated by the instructions. Technical Form-5, concerning brand details, was also erroneously rejected as the Petitioner had indicated 'NA' where not applicable. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded in the provided text. 2. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid for non-submission of a list of equipment as per Technical Form-7 was justified? - Petitioner's argument: Form-7 required bidders to submit capital expenditure, which was done. A complete list of equipment was not required by the instructions, only for movement of goods as directed by the Authority. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded in the provided text. 3. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid for non-submission of brand details as per Technical Form-5 was justified? - Petitioner's argument: The Petitioner indicated 'NA' in Technical Form-5 as not applicable, which was a valid response. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded in the provided text.