WP(C)13862/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 16.12.2009 + W.P.(C) 13862/2009 FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP PVT LTD AND ANR ..... Petitioner -versus- UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Arunabh Chouwdhury with Mr Anupam Lal Das, Mr Kashi Vishweshwar and Mr Raktim Gogoi, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr Rajesh Katyal, Advocate for respondent no. 1/UOI Ms Anjana Gosain with Ms S. Fatima, Advocates for respondent no. 2 Mr Rajiv Nayyar, Sr Advocate with Ms Shweta Bharti and Ms Sangmitra Sawant, Advocates for respondent no. 3 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is concerned with the tender for Duty Free Shops at Jaipur , Lucknow and Trichy Airports in India. The bids were invited by the Airports Authority of India. The schedule of the tender process was as under:- WP(C)13862/2009 Page 2 of 3 “1. Availability of Tender - (29.10.2009 to 16.11.2009) Documents on Web Site (upto 1500 hrs) (IST) 2. Submission of Tender - 16.11.2009 upto 1530 hrs Documents (IST) 3. Opening of Technical - 16.11.2009 at 1600 hrs Bids (IST) 4. Opening of Financial - (to be notified separately)” Bid(s) 2. On 14.11.2009, at the request of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 3, the last date of submission of the technical bids was extended upto 01.12.2009 by 1230 hrs (IST). The petitioner submitted its bid on 01.12.2009 at 11:52 a.m. No other party submitted any bid by 12:30 p.m. on 01.12.2009. However, subsequently on 01.12.2009 itself at 1600 hrs, the Airports Authority of India extended the time of submission of bids to 16.12.2009 upto 1230 hrs (IST). The said extension was done because only one bid had been received. Subsequent to this extension of time, the respondent no. 3 submitted its bid on 11.12.2009 at 11:34 a.m. We may also note that the extension that was granted on 01.12.2009 was only restricted to the parties who had purchased the tender documents and had registered themselves. We are now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased two sets of tender documents and, therefore, this would leave only three parties in the fray; the three parties being the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 and Plus Max – Way SDN BHD. 3. The petitioner filed this petition being aggrieved by the extension of time granted to the registered parties on 01.12.2009. According to the petitioner, it was the sole bidder and, therefore, only its bid ought to have WP(C)13862/2009 Page 3 of 3 been opened and processed and other bidders should not be allowed to be introduced. However, the petitioner made an alternative prayer being prayer „c‟ which reads as under:- “(c) In the alternative to prayers (a) and (b) above and without prejudice, issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no. 2-Authority to allow the petitioner no. 1-Company an opportunity to review its Tender Bid submitted on 01.12.2009 and revise/modify the same if required;” 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and we feel that the appropriate direction to be given in this matter to resolve any dispute and obviate any kind of controversy would be to permit all the registered parties, namely, the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 and Plus Max – Way SDN BHD to submit revised/modified bids in case they wish to do so latest by 1530 hrs (IST) on 23.12.2009. The opening of technical bids would be on 23.12.2009 at 1600 hrs (IST) and the opening of the financial bids would be notified separately. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J DECEMBER 16, 2009 kks