if this rent does not affect the functions of the authority covered in Section 12, which concerns air traffic service or security and security services at airports and civilian enclaves. 14. In the supplementary affidavit of 20.2.2008 filed in the Supreme Court of Hon Tale, respondent No. 3 found that three critical elements were identified as a concession envelope, a managed space experience and a total rotation, which formed the basis for the brief enumeration reiterated in the affidavit of 31.3.2008, filed before the Court, in the affidavit. In addition, respondent No. 3 argues that the EOI gave him the power to determine, at his sole discretion, the final criteria of the short list. It is argued that “it is not permissible to change the selection rules or criteria during the selection process or after the competition, nor to add an additional requirement or criteria.” Scholarly counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case (Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi) 14 2008 DGLS (soft) 450: 2008 (4) SCALE 645. In addition, the non-delivery of the tender document to the petitioner`s consortium would be tantariced to a total refusal of a fair opportunity for the consortium to participate in the tendering process. The petitioner`s consortium was simply excluded from the tendering process without even rejecting its offer.
No reason was given; Indeed, there was not even a communication to reject the offer. The process adopted was extremely proud and strange. MIAL did not meet its own schedule, as four parties would have been shortlisted and the last date for the issuance of the PSR (tender document) of 19.1.2007 was that MIAL transferred the PSR to ITDC/ALDAESA (Respondent No. 4, which had not been pre-selected to the four) on 29.1.2007. Immediately after the Court`s application was rejected on 26.2.2007, MIAL promptly handed over the mandate to ITDC/ALDAESA, on the same day that the petition in favour of special leave was filed under Article 136, in order to bring proceedings against the granting of interim measures by the Supreme Court of Hon`ble. This occurred when the last date for awarding contracts was March 7, 2007. This contract was subsequently terminated on 24.11.2007 due to alleged work problems of the ITDC and the ITDC was unable to fulfill its commitment. MIAL then simply awarded the contract to respondent No. 5 without requiring new offers, and the subsidy to respondent No.
5 is contrary to the provisions of the PSR. Section 3.1 of the PSR was not triggered. Assuming section 3.1 has been triggered, there is no power or disposition to give the contract to the second highest bidder, but respondent No. 3 is required to follow Section III. The petitioner notes and reaffirms that the expression of interest presented by the petitioner and his joint venture partner Aer Rianta International has fully met the criteria set. The petitioner and its joint venture partner together have extensive national and international experience in airport trade, a strong relationship and access to international and domestic brands, as well as proven results and the provision of high-quality services in the duty-free retail sector, particularly in India. The petitioner has the highest experience in India and fully understands Indian consumers. The facts clearly show that the entire tendering process is totally arbitrary and far from transparent. Everything was done in a secret, highly suspicious way. The absence of criteria, where “legal certainty” was required in the criteria that can be applied objectively in the decision to select the shortlist and award contracts, makes the whole process opaque, i.e. transparency, and allows MIAL to select and select a part it wishes for unknown and erroneous reasons and to exclude from competition other parties for foreign or irrelevant considerations.