http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2515 of 2006

PETITIONER: Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd

RESPONDENT: Airport Authority of India and ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/2006

BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

KAPADIA, J.         Although, I respectfully agree with the conclusion  contained in the opinion of brother, Arijit Pasayat, the  importance of the scoring system in the tender process has  impelled me to elucidate and clarify certain crucial aspects.   Hence, this separate opinion.

       The basic controversy in the present case is: whether the  E.C. had exceeded its authority in the assessment of technical  pre-qualification.

       In the scoring system objectivity has an important role to  play (Clause 5.4).  In the scoring system the identification of  factors (including sub-factors), allocation of marks to each of  these factors (including sub-factors) and giving of marks are  three distinct and different stages.  Clause 5.4 dealt with  assessment of technical pre-qualifications.  Under that clause  a scoring system was to be applied based on the assessment of  the Terms of the Offer against the Technical Pre-qualification  criteria.  It further stipulated that assessment shall be on  absolute basis and not relative as between the offers.  Under  the said system, each factor had to be allocated certain marks.   Objectivity had to be provided in the allocation of marks (and  not in giving of marks) to each factor (including sub-factors).   This was not done.  For example, RFP required certain marks  to be allocated for absorption of existing staff.  Greater the  absorption, higher the marks to be given.  In the present case,  the E.C. changed the factor, namely, "absorption of employees"  to the overall approach.  This led to change in priority.   Similarly, in the RFP, the factor earmarked was "property  development" which E.C. compared to "infrastructure  development".  Experience in property development is different  from experience in infrastructure development.  Similarly, RFP  had given weightage to aeronautical revenue whereas in  allocation of marks, E.C. obliterated the difference between  aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues.  The above  examples are given only to show that objectivity which was the  underlying principle underlying clause 5.4 is completely lost  either by expanding the enumerated factors like aeronautical  revenue, overall capability vis-‘-vis capacity to absorb existing  work-force and comparison of property development with  infrastructure development or by allocating un-even marks to  sub-factors.  In my view, E.C. had no business to expand or  narrow down the scope of any of the above factors as it was  beyond its authority and contrary to the scoring system.     

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

         With these words, I agree with the conclusion contained  in the opinion of brother, Arijit Pasayat.