The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Santosh Tiwari, proprietor of M/s Anjaney Enterprises, who challenged the fresh e-tendering process for vehicle parking management at Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur. The petitioner sought relief through the COVID-19 Concessionaire Support Scheme, requesting an extension of his parking contract. The case, WPC No. 4885 of 2024, was heard by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, who ruled against the petitioner.
Background of the Case
Santosh Tiwari was awarded the contract to operate an automated parking management system at Raipur airport in 2019. The contract, which commenced on 28th October 2019, was set to expire on 27th October 2024. Tiwari’s company invested heavily in infrastructure, including the installation of FASTag systems, and sought an extension under the Concessionaire Support Scheme introduced to mitigate financial losses incurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioner argued that other airports had granted extensions to their concessionaires under the scheme, but Raipur Airport had failed to do so, despite multiple requests and representations. The petitioner claimed that his exclusion from the extension was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Legal Issues Raised
1. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality): The petitioner argued that not granting him an extension under the Concessionaire Support Scheme, while extending the contracts of concessionaires at other airports, constituted discriminatory treatment.
2. Legitimate Expectation: The petitioner claimed that he was promised an extension by airport authorities and had made significant financial investments based on these assurances. He contended that the authorities’ failure to extend his contract violated the principle of legitimate expectation.
3. Promissory Estoppel: The petitioner asserted that the respondents had assured him of an extension, and their failure to honor this promise amounted to a breach of promissory estoppel.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the pleadings and hearing the parties, the court rejected the petitioner’s claims. The judgment emphasized that contractual and commercial decisions, such as the award of tenders, fall under the discretion of the concerned authorities and should not be interfered with unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
Citing the Tata Motors Ltd. v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport case, the court reiterated that while the judiciary is bound to protect fundamental rights, it must exercise restraint in contractual matters. The court stated, “Courts must give ‘fair play in the joints’ to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Interference in such cases should be minimal unless overwhelming public interest necessitates it.”
The court also observed that the fresh tender was not discriminatory. The petitioner had the opportunity to participate in the new tender process, and the authorities had the discretion to choose whether to extend a contract or invite fresh tenders. The court noted, “The petitioner cannot claim a right to an extension, and there is no restriction on his participation in the new tender process.”
Important Observations
– “A writ court should refrain from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out.”
– “The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not.”
– “No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the publication of the fresh tender, as it is the prerogative of the respondent authorities to decide whether to extend the contract or opt for a fresh tender, which may benefit the exchequer.”
The court’s ruling dismissed the petition and upheld the fresh tendering process, stating that the petitioner’s claims of discrimination and violation of legitimate expectation were unfounded. The decision reaffirmed the principle that contractual decisions by public authorities, especially those involving technical or commercial matters, should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or irrationality.
The petitioner was represented by Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Vivek Ranjan Pandey and Ms. Priya Mishra, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India, and Mr. Aman Saxena, counsel for the Airport Authority of India.
Case Title:Santosh Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors
CaseNo.: WPC No. 4885 of 2024
