BIAL's Tender Process Quashed: Court Orders Restart for Fairness and Transparency Due to Favoritism Concerns.

The HC determined BIAL is a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court found BIAL's tender process arbitrary, lacking transparency, and influenced by favoritism. Consequently, the court quashed the shortlisting and contract award, directing BIAL to restart the tender process within 45 days, ensuring fairness and transparency. Respondents 1 and 2 were tasked with ensuring compliance with the court's directives.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether BIAL is a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether BIAL's duties at the International Airport are statutory functions under Section 12 of the Airport Authorities Act, 1994.
3. Whether BIAL is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition.
5. Whether the petitioner has waived/acquiesced its right by participating in the selection process.
6. Whether the shortlisting of tenders by BIAL without guidelines is reasonable and valid.
7. Whether the administrative power exercised by BIAL in issuing tender documents to respondents 5 to 9 and awarding the contract to the 5th respondent is legal and valid.
8. Whether BIAL's action in awarding the contract to the 5th respondent affects public interest.
9. Whether the denial of the opportunity to offer a financial bid to the 9th respondent requires interference by the Court.

Summary:

Point Nos. 1 to 3:
The court examined whether BIAL is a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. It was found that BIAL, though a private airport, performs statutory functions and public duties under Section 12 of the A.A.I.A Act. BIAL's activities are subject to regulations under the Aircraft Act and the Airports Authority of India Act. Therefore, BIAL is considered an instrumentality of the "State" and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court cited various Supreme Court decisions to support this conclusion, emphasizing that BIAL's functions have a public character and are essential for public interest.

Point Nos. 4 and 5:
The petitioner, being a consortium partner with AerRianta, has the locus standi to file the writ petition. The court rejected the contention that the petitioner had waived its right by participating in the selection process. It was held that fundamental rights cannot be waived, and the petitioner is entitled to challenge the arbitrary exclusion from the tender process.

Point No. 6:
The court found that the shortlisting process by BIAL lacked transparency and was arbitrary. No clear guidelines or criteria were provided for shortlisting the tenders. The decision-making process was not documented, and no reasons were communicated to the petitioner for its exclusion. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the need for transparency, fairness, and reasoned decisions in administrative actions.

Point Nos. 7 to 9:
The court held that the shortlisting of respondents 5 to 9 and the awarding of the contract to the 5th respondent by BIAL were arbitrary and lacked transparency. The decision was influenced by malice and favoritism, particularly by the 4th respondent, who had a conflict of interest. The court directed BIAL to re-do the tender process from the stage of submission of E.O.I by the petitioner and others, ensuring compliance with the principles of fairness and transparency.

Order:
The court quashed the shortlisting of respondents 5 to 9 and the awarding of the contract to the 5th respondent. BIAL was directed to re-do the tender process within 45 days, keeping in view the court's observations and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to ensure compliance with the court's directions.

---