Scope of judicial review is very limited in contractual/tender matters: Chief Justice led Pancholi bench

In M/s Ranjeet Kumar vs. Airport Authority of India through the Executive Director (Commercial), Airport Authority of India & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 23-page long judgment dated August 27, 2025. This is the 27th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice wherein, he concluded:''Now, it is well settled that scope of judicial review is very limited in contractual/tender matters. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the respondent-authority. 27. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the same. 28. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.''

The petitioner's counsel submitted that as per Clause 2(iv) of commercial circular dated December 9, 2020 issued by the AAI, Commercial Concessionaires were given an option to get the contracts extended for a period equivalent to the remaining contract period w.e.f March 25, 2020 or three years, whichever is lesser on certain conditions. It was also submitted that as per the said Clause, the respondent was required to grant extension for a period of three years from December 9, 2024. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to get the extension as per aforesaid clause, despite which the contract has not been extended under the said clause. It was further submitted that the petitioner sent an e-mail on January 28, 2024 and accepted the terms and conditions of commercial circular dated 14.08.2020 and 09.12.2020. The respondent-authorities vide e-mail dated 02.07.2022 informed the petitioner that the request may be considered as per CHQ guidelines and CSS, subject to clearance of all dues as per the norms. Thereafter, the respondent-AAI also wrote a letter on 11.08.2022 that the request of the petitioner is being taken up as per the CHQ guidelines and AAI policy issued from time to time subject to, clearance of all dues and satisfactory performance as per the norms. 

The senior counsel submitted that promise was given by the respondent-authority to the petitioner that as per the clause, the agreement would be extended for a period of three years. Therefore, the petitioner acted on the said promise given by the respondent-authority and thereby made certain investment. The respondent-authority be restricted from contending that the agreement cannot be extended in view of the decision taken by the respondent-authority to construct MLCP. It was also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, principle of promissory estoppel would apply. Thereafter, the senior advocate submitted that, in fact, the respondent-authority has granted extension for a  period of three months from 10.12.2024 to 09.03.2025 and second extension was granted from 10.03.2025 to 09.06.2025 as per the original terms of the agreement. 

The petitioner had also shifted certain machinery at MLCP. He urged that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent-authorities. The senior advocate also submitted that for MLCP, the respondent-authority had issued a short-term separate NIT. However, four attempts of the respondent-authorities have failed. He urged that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities. He placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409, Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 and Union of India vs. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC. He also submitted that the respondent-authorities extended the contract period for three years qua the different agencies located at different airports. He contended that the discriminatory treatment was given to the petitioner by respondent-authority by not extending the contract for a period of three years. 

Senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that no promise was given to the petitioner that the contract would be extended for a period of three years as per CSS and, therefore, principle of promissory estoppel will not be applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore also, the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was misconceived. He placed reliance upon the Supreme Court's decisions in. N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain &
Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127; Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal, AIR 1976 SC 1654; 4. Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) & Others; 2022 SCC OnLine 1334. 

Justice Panchili got persuaded by the senior counsel for the respondent.