Name of the Student : ARAVINDH M

Registration Number : 18DBLBT004

Programme : ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Semester : VI SEMESTER

Course : LLB

Course Code : 5BLB401

Component : CASE ANALYSIS

Submitted to : Prof. ARUNA

 RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY V.THE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AIR1979 SC 1628

INTRODUCTION

The International Airport Authority is a legal entity established under the International
Airport Authority Act, 43 of 1971. In this case, the International Airport Authority of
Bombay published a notice on January 3rd, 1977, requesting proposals for the
establishment of a restaurant at the airport. However, just one notification was picked
owing to its strict adherence to the standards that satisfied the stipulations. K.S Irani
called the restaurant's possession into doubt due to noncompliance with the terms and
conditions while claiming to have 10 years of expertise. Following that, A.s Irani filed an
additional petition seeking a mandatory order to force the respondent to remove the
snack bars. This petition was presented to a single judge bench, which dismissed it after
hearing from the parties. It was then appealed to the division bench, which likewise
dismissed the appeal. Finally, the appellant filed a petition for special permission to
appeal to the Court, which is the court's final hearing. Many concerns were brought up
and debated. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision to dismiss the
writ petition was upheld.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On January 3, 1977, the International Airport Authority issued a notification inviting

Registered 2nd Class Hoteliers with at least 5 years of experience to establish an 2nd
Class Restaurant and two cafes at Bombay Airport for a period of three years. Six bids
were received in response to the notification. The tender of the fourth responder was
chosen out of the six received since it was completed and offered the most significant
proportion of permit expense. Any remaining tenders were rejected because they were
incomplete.

Everything was set up for the lead responder to manage the café and snack shops.
However, because the fourth respondent did not meet the requirements of a second-
class hotelier with 5 years of experience as stated in the tender announcement, the main
respondent, despite this, requested documentation from the fourth respondent proving
that they are not second-class hoteliers. The fourth respondent made a letter as proof
stating that they had extensive 10 years of involvement with taking into account
 RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY V.THE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AIR1979 SC 1628

presumed business houses, preparing centers, banks, and plants, giving the impression
that they did not meet the rules of second class restriction of 5 years’ experience as
previously set out in section 1 of the notification. The primary responder confirmed their
delicate on the basis and criteria lay out in its letter after being satisfied with the data
provided by the fourth respondents.

The fourth respondent had everything set up for running the café and snack bars.
However, the first respondent was unable to take over possession since A.S Irani was
still operating his café under the original arrangement. As a result, Irani filed a Civil Suit
in the Civil Court of Bombay against the respondents, questioning the first respondent's
decision to accept the fourth respondent's proposal. The fourth respondents, on the
other hand, argued that the requirement of the tender to be an enrolled 2nd grade
hotelier had no meaning because the evaluation is given by the Bombay City Municipal
Corporation only to hotels or restaurants and not to the people who run them, and thus
there could be no 2nd grade hotelier.

Previously, K.S Irani obtained a temporary injunction against the respondents, but the
court rejected the notification after hearing from the respondents. Around the same
time, the fourth responder received two sites that were distinct from those owned by A.S
Irani. Despite this, the principal respondent obtained an interim injunction prohibiting
A.S Irani from operating the café and from accessing the premises, in addition to the
order not to enter. A.S. Irani made another effort against this motion, which was finally
rejected by the Supreme Court.

Later, Ramana Dayaram Shetty, who did not offer any tender and was simply a simple
outsider, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay by challenging their decision
to accept the tender of the fourth respondent. However, his motion was similarly denied,
and he then filed an appeal to the division seat of the High Court against the request
dismissing the writ appeal, which was also denied. Many problems were presented and
investigated. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's request to dismiss the writ
appeal was granted.
 RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY V.THE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AIR1979 SC 1628

ISSUES

1. What does it mean to be a “Registered 2nd Class Hotelier”? What kind of people
fit under the purview of this description?
2. Whether the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondents by the first
respondents invalid and liable to be set aside at the appellant's request?

JUDGEMENT

The Court decided in this case that the Bombay Municipal Corporation only gives the
part of evaluating to hotels and restaurants and not to 2nd grade hoteliers, and the
requirement in the notification that the tender should be an enlisted 2nd grade hotelier
was thus a waste of time and couldn't be viewed as establishing any state of
qualification.

The fourth respondent had the same experience as the condition mentioned in the
notice, which is why the first respondent confirmed their sensitivity. There is no legal or
managerial law requiring the first respondent to give an agreement solely through
tenders; they could have given the agreement directly to the fourth respondent because
it was clearly stated in the agreement that the first respondent makes no commitment to
acknowledge all of the tenders. At the same time, they did not give the delicate directly.

Despite the fact that the petitioner was a mere stranger who did not present any tender
to the first respondent, he filed the writ request. The appeal could not be maintained
since there was no locus standi. That means that if the plaintiff did not enter the dispute
by presenting a delicate, nothing could persuade him. According to the complaint, the
first respondent acknowledged the tender of the fourth respondent and stated that in
the notice it is written that non-fulfillment of qualification will be no bar to
consideration of a tender, which is unknown to the litigant and is the reason he did not
submit the tender due to the qualification rules.

It was a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to
equality. Whether or whether this was legal at the time, the court had to decide. The
court ruled that the power of permitting or tolerating the act is in the hands of the
 RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY V.THE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AIR1979 SC 1628

government; in this case, it is in the hands of the International Airport Authority of

India, as stated in the announcement. The court denied the writ request, and he then
filed an appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed.

ANALYSIS

The Court determined that there are no simple criteria for distinguishing between
partnerships that are government instrumentalities or organizations and those that are
not. The Court also held that if broad and unusual monetary assistance is given, and the
reason for such assistance corresponds with the reason for which the company is
expected to use the assistance, and such design is of public character, it may be an
important condition supporting a deduction that the partnership is an instrumentality
or office of the Government.

The Court listed the five elements that would decide whether a body is under the
concept of State as stated in Article 12 of the Constitution:

1. The extent of the state's financial aid.

2. Any other kind of aid, whether regular or remarkable.
3. The type and degree of the state's control over the corporation's management and
policy.
4. Monopoly status given by the state or safeguarded by the state.

CONCLUSION

Following the dismissal of several injunctions, ad-interim orders, and petitions filed by
the Appellant, the court concluded that it was not in a position to grant relief to the
Appellant and consequently dismissed the petition. Finally, after the court's decision,
that appellant had no serious grounds to prove that the acceptance of the tender notice
was invalid, and thus the court approved the tender of the fourth respondents, after
which they began operating the restaurant and snack bars at the Bombay International
Airport.
 RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY V.THE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AIR1979 SC 1628

For this circumstance, the standard of administrative law is obscured. On the side of the
appealing party, he maintained that once the standards and rules are established
anywhere around any top power, he cannot return to the principles that have been
established. It is the real rule of the administrative law norm. An administration must
behave in accordance with norms and principles that have not been established.
Regardless, it is an administration. We must comprehend the standard of the
judgment's explanation. It includes the norm of non-mediation and sensitivity while
allowing power-based liberality. It forbids acting on one's own volition without
providing any rationale. That is also known as administrative law.