Patna High Court
M/S Ranjeet Kumar, A Proprietorship ... vs Airport Authority Of India on 27 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11743 of 2023
======================================================
M/s Ranjeet Kumar, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Ranjeet
Kumar, son of Ramsinghasan Singh, aged about 44 years, Gender- Male,
residing at Chandmari Road, NH-13, Lane No. 02, Kankarbagh, Sampatchak,
Lohia Nagar, Patna- 800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India through the Executive Director (Commercial),
Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdargunj Airport, New
Delhi- 110003.
2. The Executive Director (Commercial), Airport Authority of India, Rajiv
Gandhi Bhawan, Safdargunj Airport, New Delhi- 110003.
3. The Regional Executive Director, Airport Authority of India, Eastern
Region, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata- 700052.
4. The Airport Director, Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna.
5. The Senior Manager (Commercial), Airport Authority of India, Jai Prakash
Narayan International Airport, Patna.
6. The Assistant Manager (Commercial), Airport Authority of India, Jai
Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna.
7. The Junior Executive (Commercial), Airport Authority of India, Jai Prakash
Narayan International Airport, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
Mr. Yash Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, SC
Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
2/23
Date : 27-08-2025
The present petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) To issue an appropriate
order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondent authorities to grant
extension of contract to the Petitioner for a period
of three years from the date of expiry of the
original contract i.e. 09.12.2024 in terms of the
Concessionaire Support Scheme (CSS) of the
Respondent authorities issued vide Circular No.
24/2020 and Circular No. 26/2020.
(ii) To issue an appropriate
order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to handover complete
5723 sq. m. parking space in the new parking
space at Jai Prakash Narayan International
Airport, Patna in terms with the Letter of Award
dated 02.07.2019 to the Petitioner.
(iii) To issue an appropriate
order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to earmark and reserve
an area equivalent to 5723 sq. m. as specified in
the LOA dated 02.07.2019 for the Petitioner in the
Multi Level Car Parking.
(iv) To issue an appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
3/23
order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to carry out amendment
in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 02.08.2023
issued by the Respondents, for Award of
Commercial Concessions and SITC & Operation of
Vehicle Parking Management System at Multi
Level Car Parking at JPNI Airport, Patna, so far
as reserving the area earmarked for the Petitioner
i.e. 5723 sq. m.
(v) To issue an appropriate
order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents not to create any third
party right with respect to the said Multi Level Car
Parking, during the pendency of the present writ
petition.
(vi) To any other relief or reliefs for
which the Petitioner is found entitled to in facts
and circumstances of the case.
Factual Matrix
2. Petitioner has stated that it is a proprietary
concern. The respondent Airport Authority of India (in short,
'AAI') issued a Notice Inviting Tender (in short, 'NIT') for
concession to supply, install, test, commission (SITC) and
operate automated vehicle parking management system;
collection of parking fees and access fees, rights and lane
management at Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
4/23
(in short, JPNI). The petitioner submitted a bid for Rs.
10,21,675/- per month. Thereafter, AAI awarded license for
concession to supply, install, test, commission (SITC) and
operate automated vehicle parking management system;
collection of parking fees and access fees, rights and lane
management at JPNI Airport, Patna to the petitioner vide letter
of acceptance(in short, LOA) dated 02.07.2019. As per the said
LOA, the AAI awarded license with respect to car parking area
outside the terminal building to the petitioner which was
equivalent to 5960 sq.mtr. and subsequent to the completion of a
new car parking, the said area would be 5973 sq. mtr. It is also
stated that the period of license was for five years from the
actual date of commencement of the facility or the expiry of
gestation period. The license fee payable by the petitioner was
Rs. 10,21,675/- per month.
2.1. It is also stated that Concession Agreement
came to be executed between the petitioner and the AAI on
23.07.2019
enumerating the terms and conditions of grant of
license to the petitioner for a period of five years, i.e. from
10.12.2019 to 09.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced
performing his part of agreement. However, thereafter, within a
period of three months, the whole world was affected by
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic. On account of the same,
Director General of Civil Aviation vide letter and Circular dated
23.03.2020 imposed a complete ban on operation of all flights
from 24.03.2020. The validity of the said circular extended the
said ban which remained operational till 25.05.2020.
2.2. Petitioner has further stated that in view of the
fact that aviation market was severely impacted by Covid-19,
the AAI provided relief measures to the stakeholders, including
the petitioner vide Concessionaire Support Scheme (in short,
CSS) enumerated in Circular dated 14.08.2020, which was
communicated to the petitioner on 19.08.2020. Thereafter,
Circular dated 09.12.2020 came to be issued and as per Clause
2(iv) of the said circular, the commercial concessionaires were
given an option to get the contract extended for a period
equivalent to the remaining contract period w.e.f 25.03.2020 or
three years, whichever is lesser. The petitioner conveyed his
consent to all the terms and conditions of the said circular vide
e-mail dated 28.01.2021. Thereafter, on 01.05.2022 petitioner
conveyed to AAI that the petitioner has already given his
consent to the terms specified in Circular nos. 24 of 2022 and 26
of 2022 which included extension of validity of contract for a
period of three years. Accordingly, the petitioner once again
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
requested for extension for three years from 09.12.2024, of his
contract. Reminder was also sent for the same. Thereafter, on
11.08.2022 Assistant Manager (Commercial) informed the
petitioner that the request of the petitioner for extension of
contract is under consideration as per CHQ guidelines and AAI
policy.
2.3 The petitioner has also stated that as per the
terms of the agreement, petitioner was awarded the car parking
contract for an area admeasuring 5723 sq. mtr. in new parking
space. However, petitioner has been provided only an area of
4300 sq. mtr. And, therefore, various letters were written to the
respondent authority.
2.4 It is stated that AAI had floated a tender for
construction of new domestic terminal building and other
structures at JPNI Airport on 05.10.2018 in pursuance of some
construction work and other infrastructure work started at the
airport. Accordingly, in June 2021, AAI directed the petitioner
to relocate the automated parking management system (in short,
'APMS') component to ensure smooth vehicular traffic flow
during the ongoing construction works. Further, in anticipation
of extension of the contract, petitioner, vide letter dated
08.04.2023, informed the authority that the petitioner had
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
identified the agency for the purpose of installation of fast-tag
and for this purpose petitioner would be incurring an
expenditure of Rs. 25 lakhs.
2.5. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that on
17.07.2023, petitioner sent a letter to the respondent-authority
and requested for extension of the contract. It was also specified
that he has learnt that the respondent-authorities are in the
process of issuing tender with respect to multi level car parking
(in short 'MLCP') which is under construction. It was requested
to the respondent-authorities that before issuing the tender with
respect to MLCP, an area equivalent to the area specified in his
agreement be earmarked and reserved for the petitioner,
enabling him to recover the losses suffered by him during the
period of pandemic.
2.6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that
instead of granting extension of the agreement in terms of CSS,
the respondent-authorities have issued a fresh tender for award
of concessions and SITC etc. at JPNI Airport on 02.08.2023
and, therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition in August,
2023.
3. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that during
the pendency of the present petition, petitioner has filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
different interlocutory applications, wherein the petitioner has
prayed for various reliefs. However, as the main petition is itself
taken up for final disposal, all the interlocutory applications are
also disposed of by this judgment.
4. Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agarawal, learned
Advocate for the petitioner and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent-authorities.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh
appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly submit that
as per Clause 2(iv) of commercial circular dated 09.12.2020
issued by the AAI, Commercial Concessionaires were given an
option to get the contracts extended for a period equivalent to
the remaining contract period w.e.f 25.03.2020 or three years,
whichever is lesser on certain conditions. It is further submitted
that as per the said Clause, the respondent was required to grant
extension for a period of three years from 09.12.2024. Thus, the
petitioner is entitled to get the extension as per aforesaid clause,
despite which the contract has not been extended under the said
clause. It is further submitted that the petitioner sent an e-mail
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
on 28.01.2024 and accepted the terms and conditions of
commercial circular dated 14.08.2020 and 09.12.2020. Further,
the respondent-authorities vide e-mail dated 02.07.2022
informed the petitioner that the request may be considered as
per CHQ guidelines and CSS, subject to clearance of all dues as
per the norms. Thereafter, the respondent-AAI also wrote a
letter on 11.08.2022 that the request of the petitioner is being
taken up as per the CHQ guidelines and AAI policy issued from
time to time subject to, clearance of all dues and satisfactory
performance as per the norms. Thus, Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned
Senior Advocate would submit that promise was given by the
respondent-authority to the petitioner that as per the aforesaid
clause, the agreement would be extended for a period of three
years. Therefore, the petitioner acted on the said promise given
by the respondent-authority and thereby made certain
investment. Thus, the respondent-authority be restricted from
contending that the agreement cannot be extended in view of the
decision taken by the respondent-authority to construct MLCP.
It is also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, principle of promissory estoppel would apply.
6. Learned Senior Advocate, thereafter, submits
that, in fact, the respondent-authority has granted extension for a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
period of three months from 10.12.2024 to 09.03.2025 and
second extension was granted from 10.03.2025 to 09.06.2025 as
per the original terms of the agreement. The petitioner has also
shifted certain machinery at MLCP. At this stage, it is pointed
out from page 552 of the compilation that even as on date
surface parking area of 3826 sq. mtr. is still available, despite
which the respondent-authority has refused to grant extension as
per CSS. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that
appropriate direction be issued to the respondent-authorities.
7. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate further
submitted that for MLCP, the respondent-authority has issued a
short-term separate NIT. However, four attempts of the
respondent-authorities have failed. Learned Senior Advocate,
therefore, urged that, looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case, appropriate directions be issued to the respondent-
authorities.
8. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance
upon following decisions:-
1. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar
Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021;
2. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409;
3. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India,
(2012) 11 SCC 1;
4. Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC
25.
9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh,
further submits that the respondent-authorities extended the
contract period for three years qua the different agencies located
at different airports. Learned Senior Advocate referred page nos.
146 and 147 of the compilation. Learned Senior Advocate, thus,
contended that the discriminatory treatment is given to the
petitioner by respondent-authority by not extending the contract
for a period of three years.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
10. Learned Senior Advocate Dr. K.N. Singh,
appearing on behalf of the respondent-authority has vehemently
opposed the present petition. It is submitted that the agreement
was executed with the petitioner for a period of five years from
10.12.2019 up to 09.12.2024. Thereafter, the respondent-
authority issued commercial circulars whereby certain
concessions have been granted to the Concessionaires. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
further submitted that petitioner has placed reliance upon Clause
2(iv) of circular dated 09.12.2020. However, as per the
provisions contained in the said circular, term can be extended
by mutual consent. It is further submitted that the respondent-
authority has never given promise to the petitioner, as
contended, and, in fact, when the request was made by the
petitioner, it was informed that his request may be considered as
per CHQ guidelines and CSS, subject to clearance of the dues.
Even in the communication dated 11.08.2022, it was informed
that request of the petitioner is being taken up as per the
aforesaid guidelines and the policy.
11. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents in
the meeting dated 28.04.2022 on commercial MLCP utilisation,
it was decided that vehicle parking contract is not extended
under CCS considering MLCP utilisation. At this stage, learned
Senior Advocate referred Clause 5 and 6 of NIT, a copy of
which is placed on page no. 211 of the compilation. It is
submitted that in the NIT itself there is a reference with regard
to ongoing expansion/modernization works for new terminal
building. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred to Clause-
12 of the said document.
12. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
now, the new terminal has been constructed and is in operation
wherein there is a facility of MLCP having area admeasuring
28698.04 sq. mtr. The entire construction is one unit and it is a
five storeyed building.
13. Learned Senior Advocate has referred page no.
552 of the compilation. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore,
urged that considering the utilisation of the MLCP, the
concerned authority has decided not to give extension under the
CSS to the petitioner. It has been pointed out from the record
that if the area of 5700 sq. mtr. is reserved for petitioner in the
newly constructed MLCP of 29000 sq. mtr., huge space would
remain unutlized in MLCP and this would lead to a huge
financial loss to the exchequer. In fact, MLCP is constructed on
an investment of Rs. 35 crores by AAI. It is further contended
that MLCP is different from pure parking management as its
scope includes commercial and retail facilities added along-with
parking management. It has been pointed out from the record
that the respondent-authority did not have any intention to
earmark space in the MLCP to the petitioner as both locations
are different and distinct from one another.
14. Learned Senior Advocate at this stage, has
pointed out that as per Clause 15.5 of Special terms and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
conditions of AAI had considered extension of contract, initially
for a period of three months and thereafter another period of
three months, i.e., between 10.12.2024 to 09.03.2025 and then
10.03.2025 to 09.06.2025. However, the said extension is as per
the terms and conditions of the agreement and not as per CSS.
14.1. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate has
also pointed out Clause 5(v)(vi) of the special terms and
conditions. It is contended that as per the said clause it was
informed to the petitioner that in view of the ongoing
construction work for new terminal building many changes are
likely to take place which may affect the traffic flow and, in
some cases, the identified parking areas. The bidders were,
therefore, advised to visit the site and finalize themselves with
the ongoing changes to avoid unnecessary contractual issue after
the award of contract. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore,
contended that the petitioner was aware about the ongoing
construction at the airport.
14.2. Learned Senior Advocate would also submit
that no promise was given to the petitioner that the contract
would be extended for a period of three years as per CSS and,
therefore, principle of promissory estoppel will not be
applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore also, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
decisions upon which the reliance is placed by the learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is
misconceived. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance
upon the following decisions:-
1. N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain &
Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127;
2. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric
Supply & Transport Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1;
3. State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal, AIR 1976 SC
1654;
4. Airport Authority of India v. Centre for
Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) & Others; 2022
SCC OnLine 1334.
15. Learned Senior Advocate, at this stage has
referred page no. 581 of the compilation and submitted that
short-term NIT has been issued on 02.07.2025 for MLCP for
minimum reserve license fee of Rs. 38,87,228/-. Therefore, it
was open for the petitioner to participate in the NIT and
compete with the other bidders, however, the petitioner has
chosen to file the present petition for extension of contract for a
period of three years. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
that the present petition may not be entertained and the same be
dismissed.
Discussions
16. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned Senior Advocates and perused the record. It
transpires from the record that pursuant to the NIT issued by the
AAI for SITC etc. at JPNI Airport, petitioner participated and,
ultimately, letter of award dated 02.07.2019 came to be issued in
favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, concession agreement dated
23.07.2019 came to be executed between the parties and the
license was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years
from 10.12.2019 to 09.12.2024. Because of the Covid-19
pandemic, a complete ban was imposed on operation of all
flights from 24.03.2020 which continued up to 25.05.2020. The
concerned respondent-authority, therefore, thought it fit to issue
circular dated 14.08.2020 and thereafter on 09.12.2020 by
which certain concessions were given to the commercial
concessionaires. The entire case of the petitioner is based on
Clause 2(iv) of circular dated 09.12.2020 which provides as
under:-
Commercial Concessionaires may be
given an option to get the contracts extended for a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
period equivalent to the remaining contract period
w.e.f. 25.3.2020 or three years, whichever is lesser.
The extension will be subject to the following
conditions:
a. The option of extending the contract
period will be subject to mutual consent.
b. The option of extending the contract
period will not be given to the contracts already
running on extension or contracts awarded under
stop-gap arrangement.
c. The option will also not be made
available to the contracts awarded after
25.03.2020.
d. Annual escalation will be made
applicable during the extended period as per the
provisions of Commercial Manual- 2019. Other
terms and conditions of extension shall be as per
agreement provisions.
e. For the contracts already
determined between 25.03.2020 and date of
issuance of instant policy guidelines to the AAI
units, the option of extension of contract period
would not be available.
17. Relying upon the aforesaid clause, it is the case
of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities were required to
extend the contract for a period of three years from 09.12.2024
up to 08.12.2027.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
18. The main contention of the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner requested the
respondent-authority for giving benefit of the said circular and,
therefore, the respondent-authority has informed to the
petitioner vide letter dated 11.08.2022 that request of the
petitioner is being taken up as per CHQ guidelines and AAI
policy issued from time to time, subject to clearance of all dues
and satisfactory performance as per the norms. Thus, it is the
case of the petitioner that promise was given by the respondent-
authority for extension of contract for three years.
19. We are of the view that the aforesaid contention
is misconceived. In fact, the petitioner has nowhere stated in the
memo of petition that the respondent-authority has given the
promise that the contract will be extended for a period of three
years. In fact, in paragraph no. 15 of the memo of petition, the
petitioner himself has stated that the Assistant Manager
(Commercial) informed the petitioner vide letter dated
11.08.2022 that the request of the petitioner for extension of
contract is under consideration as per CHQ guidelines and AAI
policy. Thus, there is a reference with regard to consideration of
extension of contract. In fact, it is a case of the petitioner
himself that his representation was not decided before filing of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
the petition and during the pendency of the petition, now the
representation has been rejected. Thus, we are of the view that
the reliance placed by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
on the principle of promissory estoppel is misconceived.
20. We have gone through the decisions upon
which the reliance has been placed by the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner. This Court cannot dispute the
proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid cases. However, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the present case as narrated hereinabove, the
said principle would not be applicable.
21. It is pertinent to note at this stage that learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioner has also contended that in
case of other agency/persons who were similarly situated, the
respondent-authority has extended the contract for a period of
three years, whereas in the case of the petitioner such extension
has not been granted and thereby the petitioner has been
discriminated. Thus, it is contended that the respondent has
violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the
view that the aforesaid contention is also misconceived because
of the following reasons:-
(i). As per Clause 5(v)(vi) of special terms and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
conditions, the petitioner was aware about the ongoing
construction work for new terminal building at JPNI Airport. It
has been specifically stated in the said clause that many changes
are likely to take place which may affect traffic flow and in
some identified parking areas. Thus from the beginning at the
time of submitting bid petitioner was aware about the
construction work which was going on with regard to the new
terminal.
(ii) Further, Clause 5 of the NIT specifically
provides that due to ongoing expansion/modernization work for
new terminal building, the existing traffic flow and parking
areas are likely to change. Further, clause-6 provides as under:-
In case of delay in implementation of
new traffic flow and parking areas, the existing
traffic flow along with parking areas will be
initially handed over to the successful bidder. Once
new plan is implemented, the entire APMS and
associated infrastructure will have to be re-
installed by the successful bidder as per NIT
conditions.
As such, the petitioner was aware about the
aforesaid aspects, despite which he entered into an agreement
with the respondent-authority and the contract period was for
five years. It is further relevant to note that the respondent-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
authority thought it fit to extend the contract from 10.12.2024 to
09.03.2025 and, thereafter, from 10.03.2025 to 09.06.2025.
However, the said extension was as per Clause-15.5 of special
terms and conditions, copy of which is placed at page 265 of the
compilation. Thus, the respondent-authority extended the period
of contract for six months from 10.12.2024 to 09.06.2025. The
aforesaid clause provides that the contract period can be
extended not exceeding nine months on mutually agreed terms
and conditions.
22. Now, it is not in dispute that new terminal
building has been constructed and MLCP is also constructed.
The said MLCP is a five storeyed building having total area
admeasuring 29000 sq. mtr, whereas the area which was allotted
to the petitioner pursuant to the agreement dated 29.07.2019
was 5700sq. mtr. It is the specific case of the respondent-
authority that the aforesaid area of 5700 sq. mtr cannot be
earmarked in MLCP and if it is reserved for the petitioner, then
huge space would remain unutilised in the MLCP and this
would lead to huge loss to the exchequer.
23. Thus, merely because the respondent-authority
has extended the period of contract for three years in case of
some other concessionaires, looking to the facts of the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
case, it cannot be said that petitioner has been discriminated, as
alleged. Thus, we are of the view that there is no violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as contended by the
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.
24. In fact, learned Senior Advocate has referred
page no. 146 and 147 of the compilation, i.e. the extension for a
period of three years granted in favour of some other
concessionaires. However, from the very same document it is
revealed that in case of other concessionaires specific letters
have been issued accepting the proposal made by the concerned
concessionaire and informing the said concessionaire that the
contract is extended for a period of three years. However, there
is no such letter issued in favour of the petitioner by the
respondent-authority and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the
promise was given by the respondent-authority to the petitioner.
25. We are further of the view that now the
respondent-authority has issued NIT for MLCP and that too for
an amount of Rs. 38 lakhs. The respondent-authority cannot be
directed to extend the contract for a period of three years, as
prayed for by the petitioner. Otherwise, huge loss would be
caused to the respondent-authority. Further, it is always open for
the petitioner to participate and compete with the other bidders
Patna High Court CWJC No.11743 of 2023 dt. 27-08-2025
in the new NIT for MLCP.
Conclusion
26. Now, it is well settled that scope of judicial
review is very limited in contractual/tender matters. This Court
cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the respondent-
authority.
27. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is
made out by the petitioner to interfere with the same.
28. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
Partha Sarthy, J: I agree.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Aditya/KC Jha
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 21.08.2025
Uploading Date 27.08.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
