1
2024:CGHC:50265-DB
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
NAFR
JAT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 6451 of 2024
• S S Multi Services Proprietor Surendra Kumar Shukla, S/o
Parmanand Shukla, Aged 46 Years Registered Office- No. 710
Zion Building, Plot No. 273, Sector- 10, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-
410210. Through Authorised Representative, Mr. Jitendra Kumar
S/o Jangi Lal Age 32 Years R/o Utrao, Utarava, Allahabad
(Prayagraj) U.P.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. Union of India Through Its Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Civil
Aviation, Having Its Office At Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Block B,
Jorbagh Safdarjung Airport Area, New Delhi- 110003.
2. Airport Authority Of India Through Its Chairman, Having Its
Corporate Office At Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi- 110003.
2
3. The Executive Director (Commercial) Airport Authority Of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi- 110003.
4. The Airport Director Airport Authority Of India, Swami Vivekanand
Airport, Raipur, 492015.
5. Santosh Tiwari S/o Shri Chandrabhushan Tiwari Aged About 45
Years Occupation- Business, Proprietor Of M/s Anjaney Enterprises,
Having Its Office At 142 Banerjee Layout, Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur,
Maharashtra- 440027
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate.
1/Union of India
For Respondent No. 2, : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate.
3 & 4
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
Per
Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
20/12/2024
1. Heard Mr. Anuj Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms.
Annapurna Tiwari, learned Advocate for Union of India and Mr.
Aman Saxena, learned Advocate for respondents No. 2, 3 & 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following reliefs:-
3
“10.1. Call for the entire records concerning the case
of the petitioner from the respondents for its kind
perusal.
10.2. Issue a writ/order/direction directing the
Respondent AAl to disqualify the Private
Respondent and consider the case of the Petitioner
for awarding the tender bearing E-Tender ID No.
2024_AAI_214094_1 published on 11.11.2024
floated by the Respondent AAI.
10.3. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court
may think fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case”.
3. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner, SS Multi Services,
began as a small parking contractor in 2003 and has since grown
into a diversified company. The Airport Authority of India (AAI)
has received various complaints regarding operating of parking
by the private respondent during its period of operation of 5 (five)
years, the tender awarded to it was not extended. Against the
non-renewal of the contract, the private respondent approached
this Hon'ble Court by way of filing WPC No. 4885 of 2024 which
was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated
27.09.2024. A short-term tender was floated by AAl wherein the
petitioner was declared successful bidder and Letter of Award
4
[LoA] was issued by the respondent AAI on 07.10.2024 in relation
to the short-term license for operating automated vehicle parking
management system collection of parking fees and excess time
fees rights at Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur for a period of
six months w.e.f. 28.10.2024. During the continuance of the
contract of the petitioner, AAI invited E-tenders for award of
Concession to Supply, Install, Test, Commission (SITC) and
Operate Automated Vehicle Parking Management System;
Collection of Parking Fees and Excess Time Fees Rights at
Swami Vivekananda Airport wherein the petitioner has
participated. It is submitted that the last date of submission of
tender was 25.11.2024 and subsequently technical bid was open
by the respondent AAl on 26.11.2024 wherein the petitioner and
the private respondent was declared as qualified. Thereafter
financial bid was open by the respondent AAI wherein the private
respondent company was declared as HI (successful) bidder.
Since, the respondent AAl has again declared private respondent
as a successful bidder knowing that during the earlier period of
contract, they have received various complaints against the
private respondent regarding over-charging and misbehaving
with the customers, the petitioner sent a letter dated 03.12.2024
to the respondent AAl requesting to look in the issue. Since no
action was taken by the respondent AAI on the letter sent by the
5
petitioner, another letter dated 14.12.20214 was sent by the
petitioner wherein apart from raising concerns regarding past
performance of the private respondent, petitioner herein, being
H2 bidder, has given its unequivocal consent informing AAl that
the petitioner is ready to match the bid of the HI bidder. Since the
respondent AAI has overlooked the previous conduct of the
private respondent because of which his earlier contract was not
extended and have again declared him as a successful bidder
which will cause loss to the public exchequer and will also affect
the rights of public at large and have also not given heed to the
request of the petitioner whereby he had given its consent for
matching the bid of HI bidder.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that declaration of the
private respondent as H1 bidder affects the rights of the
petitioner enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India as the action of the respondent is arbitrary.
He further submits that respondent authority failed to appreciate
that during the term of earlier contract between AAI and the
private respondent, which had clause for extension, was
concluded and no extension was granted considering the
performance of the private respondent. He further submits that
respondent authority failed to appreciate that the private
respondent, during the tenure of earlier contract, was
6
overcharging and misbehaving with the travelers and the
authority has received various complaints against the same. It is
submitted that because of the poor performance and complaints
received by the Authority, the contract of the private respondent
was not extended. He further submits that LOA dated 07.10.2024
issued to the petitioner came in to effect on 28.10.2024 and is
valid for a period of 6 months. It is submitted that floating a fresh
tender during the tenure of the petitioner for the same work
violates the rights of the petitioner enshrined under the
Constitution of India. He further submits that due to arbitrary
action of the respondent authority, not only the rights of the
petitioner but also the rights of Public at Large is affected making
it a fit case for exercise of power by this Hon'ble Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that
without any change in circumstances the respondent has
qualified private respondent's technical bid ignoring the past
performance of the private respondent which is arbitrary and
hence violative of the rights of the petitioner enshrined under the
Constitution of India. He further submits that as per the
knowledge of the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, the
respondent AAI had written letters to the Ministry regarding
unsatisfactory performance and complaints received by the AAI
regarding over-charging and unruly behavior of the private
7
respondent and despite the aforesaid, the private respondent's
technical bid was accepted. He further submits that the petitioner
herein is already working on the said parking to the utmost
satisfaction of the Authorities and the respondent authorities
before the completion of the tenure of the petitioner had floated a
fresh tender wherein the private respondent was declared H1
bidder which violates the rights of the petitioner. Hence, this
petition.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, 3 & 4
has submitted that that the complaint which has been filed by the
petitioner against the private respondent No. 5 who has been
declared L1 is under process by the concern competent authority.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Considering the above submissions made by the parties, the
instant petition appears to be a premature one. Hence, we do not
find any good ground to interfere in the matter at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed, leaving it to open
to the petitioner, if in futuro he is aggrieved by any action of the
respondents he may take recourse to law for redressal of his
grievances.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Raghu Jat