S S Multi Services Proprietor Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1363-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 58 of 2025

¶6

1 - S S Multi Services Proprietor Surendra Kumar Shukla, S/o Parmanand Shukla Age 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.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 - Airport Authority of India Through Its Chairman, Having Its Corporate Office At Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi- 110003

¶11

3 - The Executive Director (Commercial) Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi- 110003

¶12

4 - The Airport Director Airport Authority of India, Swami Vivekananad Airport, Raipur- 492015

¶13

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

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioner – Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 – Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 to 4 – Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09-01-2025

¶20

The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 Call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶22

10.2 Issue a writ/order/direction quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2024 issued by the General Manager (Commercial), Airport Authority of India bearing No. CL-11034/8/2024-Commercial (ANNEXURE P/1)

¶23

10.3 Issue a writ/order/direction directing the respondent AAI 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 (ANNEXURE P4)

¶24

`10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

The brief facts as mentioned in the petition are that, the Private Respondent No.5, was granted contract for Concession to Supply,

¶26

3

¶27

Install, Test, Commission and Operate Automated Parking Management System; collection of parking fees and access fees rights and lane management at Swamy Vivekanand Airport, Raipur for a period from 28-10-2019 to 27-10-2024 and the agreement had an extention clause in the same. It is submitted that due to unsatisfactory performance of the Private Respondent, the Respondent AAI refused to extend the contract and floated E- tender ID No. 2024_AAI_208987_1, September 2024, Notice Inviting Short Term E-Tender (NIET) for Operating Automated Vehicle Parking Management, System, Collection of Parking fees and Excess Time Fees Rights at Swami Vivekanand Airport, Raipur wherein the Petitioner was declared a successful bidder. Letter of Award was issued by the Respondent AAI in favour of the Petitioner on 07-10-2024 and the term of contract was for a period of 6 months commencing from 28-10-2024. It has been further submitted that during the pendency of the tenure of the Petitioner, the Respondent AAI floated another tender 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 Vevekananda Airport published on 11-11-2024 wherein the Petitioner and the Private Respondent has participated. Thereafter, technical bid was open by the Respondent AAI on 2611-2024 wherein the Petitioner and the Private Respondent were declared as qualified ignoring the past performance of the Private

¶28

4

¶29

Respondent whose earlier contract was not extended because of his unsatisfactory performance. Since, the Respondent AAI has accepted technical bid of the Private Respondent ignoring his past performance and has rejected the complaint preferred by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was given the work order as temporary arrangement as the extension was not granted earlier to private respondent who has been declared now L1. He has stated that atleast the petitioner be permitted to continue his work till 27-04-2025 as per the awarded contract.

¶31

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall continue his work till 27-04-2025 as per the awarded contract and thereafter, the respondents authority are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the NIT which has been issued in favour of the private respondent.

¶32

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶33

Aadil

S S Multi Services Proprietor v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S S Multi Services Proprietor v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasik Bala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sohanlal Singraul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durgesh Nandini Marawi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Boga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firdos Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmeshwar Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh