Writ review of airport tendering: public functions require transparent, reasoned selection criteria free from arbitrariness.

A private airport operator performing statutory airport functions and operating under a public project framework was held amenable to writ jurisdiction because its activities involved a pervasive public element and were subject to constitutional scrutiny. The petitioner had locus standi to challenge exclusion from the tender process, and mere participation in the selection exercise did not amount to waiver or acquiescence. The Court found the short-listing criteria opaque, the exclusion unexplained, and the award of contract arbitrary for want of transparent, objective and reasoned decision-making, amounting to a breach of Article 14. The tender process was quashed and remitted for reconsideration from the expression-of-interest stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether BIAL performed public duties and was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the petitioner had locus standi and had waived or acquiesced its right by participating in the selection process; (iii) Whether the short-listing process and award of contract were arbitrary, lacking in transparency and reasons, and liable to be quashed for breach of Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether BIAL performed public duties and was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The airport project was backed by governmental land acquisition, statutory airport functions and concession arrangements. The functions of operating and maintaining the airport, providing air traffic and air transport services, and establishing or assisting private airports were treated as statutory and public in character. The Court applied the constitutional tests of State action, instrumentality of the State, and public duty, holding that the nature of the functions, the statutory framework, and the pervasive public element brought BIAL within constitutional scrutiny.

Conclusion: BIAL was held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction and its actions were subject to judicial review.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had locus standi and had waived or acquiesced its right by participating in the selection process.

Analysis: The petitioner had submitted its expression of interest as part of a consortium and was directly affected by exclusion from the tender stage. Mere participation in the process did not amount to waiver, estoppel, or abandonment of constitutional or statutory rights. The challenge was held maintainable because the petitioner's legal interest in competing for the contract was curtailed by the impugned short-listing.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held to have locus standi, and no waiver or acquiescence was found.

Issue (iii): Whether the short-listing process and award of contract were arbitrary, lacking in transparency and reasons, and liable to be quashed for breach of Article 14.

Analysis: The invitation for expression of interest did not contain intelligible, objective and transparent norms for short-listing. The exclusion of the petitioner was not supported by communicated reasons, and the record did not disclose a rational decision-making process. The Court held that when a public body exercises discretion in selecting bidders for a public project, it must act fairly, reasonably, transparently and on discernible criteria. The absence of reasons, the opaque short-listing, and the award of contract were treated as arbitrary and as a legal malice in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The short-listing of respondents 5 to 9 and the award of contract in favour of respondent 5 were held illegal and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the tender process was set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh from the stage of submission of expressions of interest in accordance with the Court's observations.

Ratio Decidendi: A body performing public or statutory functions in a public project must exercise selection and contractual discretion on objective, transparent and reasoned criteria, and its actions remain subject to writ review for arbitrariness and breach of Article 14.

---