Delhi High Court
Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt Ltd And ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 December, 2009
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.12.2009
+ W.P.(C) 13862/2009
FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP PVT LTD AND ANR ..... Petitioner
-versus-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Arunabh Chouwdhury with Mr Anupam Lal Das,
Mr Kashi Vishweshwar and Mr Raktim Gogoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr Rajesh Katyal, Advocate for respondent no. 1/UOI
Ms Anjana Gosain with Ms S. Fatima, Advocates for
respondent no. 2
Mr Rajiv Nayyar, Sr Advocate with Ms Shweta Bharti and
Ms Sangmitra Sawant, Advocates for respondent no. 3
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is concerned with the tender for Duty Free Shops at
Jaipur , Lucknow and Trichy Airports in India. The bids were invited by the
Airports Authority of India. The schedule of the tender process was as
under:-
"1. Availability of Tender - (29.10.2009 to 16.11.2009)
Documents on Web Site (upto 1500 hrs) (IST)
2. Submission of Tender - 16.11.2009 upto 1530 hrs
Documents (IST)
3. Opening of Technical - 16.11.2009 at 1600 hrs
Bids (IST)
4. Opening of Financial - (to be notified separately)"
Bid(s)
2. On 14.11.2009, at the request of the petitioner as well as the
respondent no. 3, the last date of submission of the technical bids was
extended upto 01.12.2009 by 1230 hrs (IST). The petitioner submitted its
bid on 01.12.2009 at 11:52 a.m. No other party submitted any bid by 12:30
p.m. on 01.12.2009. However, subsequently on 01.12.2009 itself at 1600
hrs, the Airports Authority of India extended the time of submission of bids
to 16.12.2009 upto 1230 hrs (IST). The said extension was done because
only one bid had been received. Subsequent to this extension of time, the
respondent no. 3 submitted its bid on 11.12.2009 at 11:34 a.m. We may also
note that the extension that was granted on 01.12.2009 was only restricted to
the parties who had purchased the tender documents and had registered
themselves. We are now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner had purchased two sets of tender documents and,
therefore, this would leave only three parties in the fray; the three parties
being the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 and Plus Max - Way SDN BHD.
3. The petitioner filed this petition being aggrieved by the extension of
time granted to the registered parties on 01.12.2009. According to the
petitioner, it was the sole bidder and, therefore, only its bid ought to have
been opened and processed and other bidders should not be allowed to be
introduced. However, the petitioner made an alternative prayer being prayer
„c‟ which reads as under:-
"(c) In the alternative to prayers (a) and (b) above and without
prejudice, issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondent no. 2-Authority
to allow the petitioner no. 1-Company an opportunity to review
its Tender Bid submitted on 01.12.2009 and revise/modify the
same if required;"
4. We have heard counsel for the parties and we feel that the appropriate
direction to be given in this matter to resolve any dispute and obviate any
kind of controversy would be to permit all the registered parties, namely, the
petitioner, the respondent no. 3 and Plus Max - Way SDN BHD to submit
revised/modified bids in case they wish to do so latest by 1530 hrs (IST) on
23.12.2009. The opening of technical bids would be on 23.12.2009 at 1600
hrs (IST) and the opening of the financial bids would be notified separately.
With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VEENA BIRBAL, J
DECEMBER 16, 2009
kks
