Asmat Moot

UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR ANNUAL MOOT COURT 2024
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF J AND K AND

LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Writ Petition under (CIVIL) NO_2024
IN THE CASE OF:
Mr. Waseem……………….……….……………………… PETITIONER
V.
Srinagar Airport Authority……………………….….RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES
ARGUMENTS
PRAYER
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
 Builders Association of India v. Union of India (2024)
 KCC Infra Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr
(2024)
 P. Ravishankar v. State of Tamilnadu (2021)
 Harminder Singh Arora v. Union Of India And Others (1986)

STATEMENT OF FACTS
May it please your lordship

The respondent most humbly submits as under:
 The Srinagar International Airport authority issued a tender for the

establishment of a hotelier within the airport premises.
 They provided criteria for applicants, some of which were communicated

after the submission deadline had passed.
 Mr. Waseem, a potential applicant, did not submit an application because

he believed he was ineligible based on one of the conditions that were
later deleted.
 Upon discovering that the condition which rendered him ineligible had
been removed by the authorities, Mr. Waseem became aggrieved by the
actions of the airport authority.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether administrative discretion was exercised properly or was it arbitrary ?

ARGUMENT
The revision of eligibility criteria in the tender process was a policy decision
taken by the Airport Authority to ensure the effective conduct of tenders. This
decision falls within the purview of the authority's discretion in setting terms for
the tender process.
The eligibility criteria were revised to ensure the best equipment and services
for the passengers and public safety. The Airport Authority, in its capacity as a
public entity, has the responsibility to prioritize public interest and safety in its
decisions regarding tender processes.
The revised eligibility criteria were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.
They were formulated by a committee consisting of experienced individuals
who carefully considered various aspects, including safety concerns and public
interest, before making the revisions.
The decisions of various courts, including the Supreme Court of India,

emphasize that the terms of a tender document and awarding of contracts should
be left to the discretion of the State authorities unless found to be malicious or a
misuse of statutory powers. Courts should only interfere if the decision-making
process is arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory.
The Airport Authority ensured a fair, equal, and non-discriminatory evaluation

of tenders, in line with the principles established by judicial precedents. The
eligibility criteria were set to ensure that only qualified and capable contractors
participate in the tender process.
The Airport Authority's decision-making process should be viewed in the

context of transparency and adherence to guidelines. Any violation of guidelines,
if proven, could be a valid ground for challenging the tender process. However,
in this case, there is no evidence to suggest a violation of transparency norms.
The airport authority has the discretion to set the terms of the tender and
eligibility criteria, and courts usually do not interfere unless the actions of the
authority are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. This principle is supported
by various legal precedents:
 Builders Association of India v. Union of India (2024): The Supreme Court
held that the power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in
the allotment of contracts is subject to judicial review only if the action is
shown to be malafide, arbitrary, discriminatory, or biased.
 KCC Infra Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr
(2024): The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must concede greater
latitude to state authorities in formulating tender conditions and awarding
contracts. Interference by the court is not warranted unless the tendering
authority's actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.
 P. Ravishankar v. State of Tamilnadu (2021): The court held that the

government and its undertakings must have a free hand in setting the terms
of the tender. Courts will only interfere if the terms are arbitrary,
discriminatory, mala fide, or biased.
 Harminder Singh Arora v. Union Of India And Others (1986): The court
emphasized that courts do not normally interfere with policy decisions or
challenges to the award of contracts by the state or public authorities. The
court will only intervene if the decision is contrary to public interest,
discriminatory, or unreasonable.
PRAYER:
In light of the arguments presented herein, the Respondent respectfully prays

that this hon’ble High court May:
1. Dismisses the allegations raised by Mr. Waseem regarding the change in

eligibility criteria after the submission deadline
2. Affirms the legality and validity of the airport authority's decision to modify
the eligibility criteria in accordance with relevant regulations and procedures.
3. Upholds the discretion of the airport authority to manage procurement

processes effectively and efficiently.Grants any further relief or remedies
deemed just and equitable in the circumstances of this case.
4. Costs of these proceedings be awarded in favor of the Respondent.
Counsel for respondent

Asmat Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asmat Moot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asmat Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR ANNUAL MOOT COURT 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF J AND K AND

Writ Petition under (CIVIL) NO_2024

IN THE CASE OF:

Mr. Waseem……………….……….……………………… PETITIONER

Srinagar Airport Authority……………………….….RESPONDENTS

 Builders Association of India v. Union of India (2024)

 P. Ravishankar v. State of Tamilnadu (2021)

 Harminder Singh Arora v. Union Of India And Others (1986)

May it please your lordship

 The Srinagar International Airport authority issued a tender for the

 They provided criteria for applicants, some of which were communicated

 Mr. Waseem, a potential applicant, did not submit an application because

1. Whether administrative discretion was exercised properly or was it arbitrary ?

The decisions of various courts, including the Supreme Court of India,

The Airport Authority ensured a fair, equal, and non-discriminatory evaluation

The Airport Authority's decision-making process should be viewed in the

 P. Ravishankar v. State of Tamilnadu (2021): The court held that the

In light of the arguments presented herein, the Respondent respectfully prays

1. Dismisses the allegations raised by Mr. Waseem regarding the change in

3. Upholds the discretion of the airport authority to manage procurement

4. Costs of these proceedings be awarded in favor of the Respondent.

Counsel for respondent

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.