JUDGMENT Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for quashing the Notice inviting Tender dated 30.08.2001, Annexure P1 to the Writ Petition, and also directing the respondent, The Airport Authority of India, to keep the criteria eligibility for the said contract in question reasonable.
2.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3.The petitioner has challenged the Notice inviting Tender issued by Respondent No. 1 on 30.08.2001 on the ground that the criteria therein will result in monopoly of one person who is already doing his contract with the respondent, because no other contractor will have such eligibility in the said tender.
4.It is alleged ion the Writ Petition that the criteria of eligibility for participating in the tender is so high that nobody can quote the rates mentioned therein. It is alleged that Sh. Bikram Singh, who is running the contract of respondent No. 1 can alone quote the minimum reserve price and will thus succeed in getting the contract without any competition.
5.The Notice inviting tender states that the tenderer must have two years experience of car parking with government agencies/public sector companies/5 % 4 Star Hotel etc. He must have also minimum annual turnover equivalent to Rs.1.80 crores for serial No. 1and Rs.2.40 crores for serial No. 2. He must have also tie-up arrangement with a computer/software firm for development of software and installation of hardware for operating the computerized car park facility to regulate the Entry and Exit of vehicles.
6. We see nothing arbitrary or illegal in these conditions. It is ordinarily for the Respondent to decide what will be the tender conditions, and this Court cannot interfere in such matters vide WP (C) No. 20185-87/2005, dated 08.12.2005 Visa Steel Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. The entire case law on this point has been mentioned in the aforesaid decision and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same.
7. In the counter-affidavit of Respondent No. 3, it is stated that the petitioner has neither purchased nor applied for the tender form nor had filled-up the same, hence he has no locus standi to challenge the tender published on 30.08.2001. Moreover, the Writ Petition has become infructuous because the license under the aforesaid Notice inviting tender dated 30.08.2001 had already been granted to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 15.10.2001 and in pursuance of the said allotment letter, concluded agreements have also been executed. Licenses have been granted for five years. It is denied that under the terms and conditions of the tender, only one person would become eligible. Criteria for inviting tenders by The Airport Authority of India is in accordance with the policy and guidelines framed in accordance with the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. Six contractors had approached the respondent-Airport Authority of India for purchase of tender form, out of which only four were found eligible and were issued the documents of tenders. The petitioner neither applied nor purchased the tender form and hence he cannot file this writ petition.
8. In our opinion, there is no merit in this writ petition. As already mentioned above, this Court cannot interfere with the tender conditions unless they are clearly illegal or shockingly arbitrary. We find no illegality or arbitrariness in the tender conditions. Moreover, the petitioner has in fact no locus standi in the matter as he did not purchase the tender form nor applied for the same. The contract was awarded to the highest bidder for a period of five years and we find no illegality in the same. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. The earnest money deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded forth with.