RAL had challenged GETE’s constitution as illegal and unauthorised and claimed that the EGOM should have accepted only the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee (EC) and should not have asked GETE to make a further examination. The EC was set up to review the evaluation of the bids carried out by a team comprising the Global Technical Adviser and Legal and Financial Consultants.

Rejecting the argument, the Apex Court held that emergence of different views would only make the process more transparent. “GETE’s examination was restricted to see whether alignment with RFP was correctly done... GETE has gone by objective standards. The criterion adopted by GETE appears to be more rational. It proceeded with the idea that more objectivity was necessary.” The court also expressed severe displeasure over the letters written by RAL to the EGOM, Government and Airport Authority of India at various stages of the bidding process.

Citing these letters, the Government charged RAL with violating norms forbidding any contact with the authorities connected with the decision making process. RAL, in its defence, had said that it wrote the letters on the basis of information culled from newspaper reports. But the court did not agree. Observing that there was a “breach”, it said “though there is no penal clause for such breach, it goes against a very concept of fairness in the process and evaluation of bids. Whatever documents are to be submitted are clearly stipulated. Any attempt to take advantage of any newspaper report, clearly falls foul of the mandate that there shall not be any contact with any person involved in the process of selection. It is unusual that the RFP did not make such a contract as a factor for disqualification.” The SC advised the Government to keep this in view in future tenders.

... contd.