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 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.
25560 of 1998 whereby its said petition was dismissed.
The Board of Directors met on 7.11.1998 and decided to have a 4 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 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.
The law relating to award of a companytract by the State, its companyporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in R.D. Shotty vs.Intarnational Airport Authority 1979 3 SCC 483J, Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union vs. Union of India 1 1981 I SCC 568, Asstt.
On 12.12.1998 the first respondent awarded the companytract to Air India.
Cambattta 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.
While awarding the companytract to Air India what had weighed 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 byshowing its willingness in equity participation.
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.
Thereafter a meeting took place between the Managing Director of Air India and the Chief Minister of Kerala.
It found that Cambatta, Air India, DNATA and Ogden Aviation were on par as regards technical companypetence, organisationai capacity and past experience.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of CIAL it was stated that this was number a case where tenders were invited.
Cambatta filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court challenging that action of CIAL.
Its companytention was that its offer was the highest and it had fulfilled all the companyditions.
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 Indian companypany and they also have experience of over 30 years in ground handling work.
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.
JUDGEMENT T.NANAVATI Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Out of those two it recommended Cambatta for awarding the work.
Proposals of some of them companytained alternative proposals also.
The Committed companystituted by CIAL for evaluation of the offers met on 28.9.1998.
462 of 1999.
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.
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 its exclusive handling agent.
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.
Cambata did so on 28.7.1998.
Air India submitted its proposal on 20.7.1998.
On 13.7.1998 CIAL again wrote to them to make their best offers on or before 28.7.1998.
Cambatta Aviation Ltd. 9hereinafter referred to as Cambatta had filed that appeal against the decision of a learned Single Judge of that High Court in O.P. No.
Ltd. responded.
It again wrote to the Chief Minister on 12.11.1998 against giving preference to a national carrier in view of the policy of liberlisation.
