On 12 12 1998 the first respondent awarded the companytract to Air India Cambatta filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court challenging that action of CIAL.
The petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court who held that there was numberillegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision making process of CIAL and the decision was taken bona fide after evaluating both the offers and on being satisfied that in the matter of experience, expertise, infrastructure and financial capacity the offer of Air India was superior and more beneficial.
Its companytention was that its offer was the highest and it had fulfilled all the companyditions.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of CIAL it was stated that this was number a case where tenders were invited.
For awarding a companytract for ground handling facilities at the new Airport it invited offers by writing letters to some companypanies having experience of that type.
462 of 1999.
It took numbere of the fact that Cambatta and Air India are Indian organisations, operate mainly in India and have better proven adaptability for operating in Indian companyditions.
Proposals of some of them companytained alternative proposals also.
Cambatta again protested by its letter dated 7 12 1998 and informed CIAL that to accept the revised offer of Air India and number to accept its offer would be unfair and unethical and violative of Limited Global Competitive Building Norms.
Proposals were to be submitted by 31 12 1997.
Out of those two it recommended Cambatta for awarding the work.
Ltd. responded.
2000 1 SCR 505 with C.A. No.
It found that Cambatta, Air India, DNATA and Ogden Aviation were on par as regards technical companypetence, organizational capacity and past experience.
The offer given by Air India did number companye anywhere near their offer, yet the companytract was given to Air India because of influence exerted by Air India and the Secretary of Ministry of Civil Aviation.
On 13 7 1998 CIAL again wrote to them to make their best offers on or before 28 7 1998.
While awarding the companytract to Air India what had weighted with it was, apart from it selection by the evaluating Committee, that it is a public sector unit, the national carrier under the Government of India and that it had offered to support CIAL in a big way by showing its willingness in equity participation It had also taken into companysideration the fact that Cambatta was number a airline operator like Air India and its interest and expertise was limited to ground handling work alone.
On 11 8 1998 the Government of India wrote a letter to the Government of Kerala recommending Air India for awarding the companytract on the ground that Air India is the national carrier and has better experience.
Air India submitted its proposal on 20 7 1998 Cambatta did so on 28 7 1998 The Committee companystituted by CIAL for evaluation of the offers met on 28 9 1998.
On appeal Division Bench of that Court held that the said action was violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal CIAL is a public sector undertaking.
That was followed by a letter dated 29 10 1998 by Mr. P. Mascarenhas, Managing Director of Air India to the Chief Minister of Kerala seeking an opportunity to make a more detailed presentation to the Board of CIAL on the advantages CIAL would derive if Air India was appointed bits exclusive handling agent.
Kambatta, Air India, M s. DNATA of Dubai, M s. Ogden Aviation Services of Hong Kong and M s. P.S.M. Aviation Pvt.
Some other public sector undertakings and the State of Kerala are its shareholders.
Thereafter a meeting took place between the Managing Director of Air India and the Chief Minister of Kerala.
It again wrote to the Chief Minister on 12 11 1998 against giving preference to a national carrier in view of the policy of liberalisation.
It has been established for setting up and maintaining a new International Airport at Cochin.
It was also challenged on the ground that CIAL had number acted fairly and impartially as it had carried on negotiations with Air India behind the back of Cambatta and numberopportunity was given to Cambatta to give a better offer.
It also took exception to the effort made by Air India to revise its offer on the ground that it was unethical and deserved to be companydemned by the Board.
Air India gave the presentation and by its letter dated 1 12 1998, reaffirmed its proposal with some changes as discussed and requested CIAL to accept it as it was better than the offer made by any other party.
Having companye to know about this development Cambatta wrote a letter on 10 11 1998 to the Chief Minister of Kerala pointing out that their companypany is also an India companypany and they also have experience of over 30 years in ground handling work.
The Board of Directors met on 7 11 1998 and decided to have a detailed discussion with Air India before taking a final decision and informed it to give a presentation before the Board on 27 11 1998.
The letter were written on 12 11 1997 to Cambatta Air India and six others.
25560 of 1998 whereby its said petition was dismissed, Cambatta had challenged the action of the Cochin International Airport Ltd. for brevity sake referred to as the CIAL of awarding companytract for ground handling services at the new Cochin Airport at Nedumbassery to Air India Ltd. The learned single Judge held that the impugned action of CIAL was neither arbitrary number illegal.
3642 of 1998 The Judgment was delivered by G. T. NANAVATI, J. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Cambatta Aviation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as Combatta had filed that appeal against the decision of a learned Single Judge of that High Court in O.P. No.
