Ex Armymens Protection Services PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Ex Armymens Protection Services Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash a letter dated July 18, 2019, issued by the Additional Managing Director of Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. This letter declared M/s Chinmaye Inn as the successful bidder for operating and maintaining a restaurant at Hotel Kautilya Vihar, Patna, for 10 years at a price of ₹20 Lakhs, directing the deposit of this amount with GST for the allotment order and agreement. The petitioner also challenged the entire decision-making process for the allotment, alleging arbitrariness and illegality. The petitioner, the erstwhile licensee, offered to continue the agreement at an annual license fee of ₹30 Lakhs, significantly higher than the awarded bid. The petitioner requested an interim order to prevent the allotment to M/s Chinmaye Inn or, if already made, to stay it, and to allow the petitioner to continue operations.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel stated that in view of the averments made in paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 6, the present petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition, as it had rendered infructuous. The Court granted the permission to withdraw. The petition was accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the decision-making process for the allotment of the restaurant at Hotel Kautilya Vihar, Patna, for a period of 10 years, pursuant to the NIT dated March 8, 2019, suffers from arbitrariness and illegality, as contended by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the grant of the tender reconsidered in their favor, given their willingness to pay a higher license fee, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the allotment process was arbitrary and illegal. They further contended that they were willing to pay a substantially higher annual license fee of ₹30 Lakhs compared to the successful bidder's ₹20 Lakhs, and therefore, the tender should be reconsidered in their favor. The respondents, specifically respondent nos. 3 to 6 (Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and its officials), stated in their counter affidavit, as averred by the petitioner in paragraph 4, that the petition had become infructuous. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents beyond this statement.