Considering this as a special case, the concerned e-portal / the Authority in charge of the Management of the portal regarding the auction shall permit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 01.10.2026
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 06.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.39829 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.44778, 44779, 44781 & 44782 of 2026
Nuance Group (India) Private Limited,
CIN:U51228KA2006PTC115512,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Mr.Prasad Muthu,
08-136, We work Manyata Redwood,
Block D3, Manyata Tech Park Road,
Thanissandra B Nagavara,
Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 045. … Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Civil Aviation,
C-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2. Airports Authority of India,
Rep. by the Airport Director,
Chennai International Airport,
GST Road, Meenambakkam,
Chennai – 600 016.
Also having its Corporate / Principal Office at
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110 003.
3. The Mumbai Travel Retail Limited,
(CIN.U52520GJ202IPLC152435),
(Formerly known as
Mumbai Travel Retail Private Limited),
Office at Adani Corporate House,
Shantigram, Near Vaishno Devi Circle,
S.G.Highway, Khodiyar,
Ahmedabad, Daskroi,
Gujarat – 382 421. … Respondents
(R3 suo motu impleaded as per order dated 28.09.2026 in W.P.No.39829 of 2026 by DBCJ)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 25.09.2026 published in http://etenders.gov.in by rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner in E-bid No.(Tender ID No):2026-AAI-261228-1 dated 01.01.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to consider the financial bid of the petitioner along with other bids before issuing Letter of Intent to award to a selected bidder and before executing concession agreement for the grant of concession for development, operation and maintenance of Duty-Free outlets at Chennai International Airport.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Aravindan
for M/s.Fox Mandal and Associates
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India
for Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan
Govt. Advocate (Pondy) for R1 & R2
Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel
for Mr.L.Suraj
for Mr.V.Karthik
for M/s.Ams.Legal Associates for R3
O R D E R
A. The Petition:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 25.09.2026, whereby the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected by the second respondent, with a consequential prayer to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s financial bid along with the other bids before issuing a letter of intent to award the contract to the selected bidder and before executing the concession agreement for the development, operation and maintenance of duty-free outlets at Chennai International Airport.
B. The facts in brief:
2. The second respondent, the Airports Authority of India (AAI), issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on 01.01.2026 for the development, operation, and maintenance of duty-free outlets at Chennai Airport. The petitioner also participated in the bid. Although the RFP schedule required bids to be opened on 04.03.2026, they were not opened on that date.
2.1 On 19.03.2026, the second respondent sought two clarifications regarding the petitioner’s bid: (i) details of affiliates and the amounts in respect of the commercial licences at airports controlled by the Airports Authority of India; and (ii) the issue of the document having been signed before the date mentioned in the power of attorney. On 24.03.2026, the petitioner submitted a detailed response to the second respondent’s queries. On 25.03.2026, the petitioner uploaded a consolidated clarification to those queries on the second respondent’s portal.
2.2 Thereafter, the second respondent issued a second round of clarification queries to other bidders, including Multistar Metal Trading LLC and the third respondent, Mumbai Travel Retail Limited, on various criteria and compliance matters. The competing bidders were given time until 24.04.2026 to furnish additional explanations, clarifications and supporting documents. On 25.09.2026, the second respondent evaluated the technical bids and rejected the petitioner’s technical bid as ineligible under Clauses 2.2.4, 2.14.1, 2.14.6(iv) and 3.3.2, and under Form III of the RFP. In all, the second respondent technically evaluated three bids, of which two, including the petitioner’s bid, were rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 28.09.2026.
C. The Hearing:
3. The writ petition was urgently moved by way of a lunch motion on 28.09.2026. At that time, it was brought to the Court’s notice that, on the same day the technical bid was rejected, the financial bid was opened and the third respondent, Mumbai Travel Retail Limited, was selected as the successful bidder. Accordingly, on representation, this Court impleaded the third respondent. Short Notice was issued to the respondents, and the petitioner pressed for interim relief, and the matter was listed for further hearing on 01.10.2026. On 01.10.2026, both sides were ready and argued the main writ petition in detail.
D. The Version of the Respondents:
4. The second respondent, the Airports Authority of India, resists this writ petition on the ground that, under the RFP, the petitioner must comply with the requirements stipulated therein. If any one or more of the conditions are not met, the bid will be treated as non-responsive. If the bid is non-responsive, the technical bid is liable to be rejected. Under Clause 2.14.6(iv), the bidder must submit a duly notarised power of attorney for signing the proposal, as per Form-III. Clause 2.2.4 also requires the bidder to submit a power of attorney in the format prescribed in Form-III, authorising the signatory to submit the bid.
4.1 The format is prescribed in the RFP as Form-III. Under that format, the power of attorney must be duly executed, witnessed by two persons, and notarised. Thereafter, the power holder should also sign the power of attorney, thereby accepting the grant of power. In the instant case, although the initial query concerned the date of execution, scrutiny revealed that the petitioner’s power of attorney was witnessed by only one person, whereas the prescribed format clearly requires two witnesses to witness and sign the document. The power of attorney submitted by the petitioner is therefore incomplete, as the second witness’s signature is absent.
4.2 Further, the power holder, namely, the person signing the bid documents, must countersign the power of attorney to demonstrate that he has accepted the power granted in his favour and is acting for and on behalf of the petitioner. That signature is also missing. Although the authority retains the power to seek clarifications under Clause 3.3.3 of the RFP, that power is to be exercised only if the authority requires any clarification, additional information, or an additional document. It does not apply to the present factual situation, where the bidder has submitted incomplete or incorrect documents. In such cases, the authority scrutinises the bid strictly in accordance with the RFP and rejects proposals that do not conform to its terms.
4.3 The third respondent also opposes the writ petition on the ground that every bidder must carefully review the RFP and, if necessary, engage appropriate experts to fill in the various forms properly. A bidder cannot plead a mistake in submitting the documents and thereafter derail the pristine tender process. Bidders must exercise a high degree of care while submitting the documents. Once the documents have been submitted and taken up for scrutiny, there is no scope for any addition, alteration or correction. Therefore, the bidding process has proceeded correctly in accordance with law and does not call for interference by this Court.
E. The Arguments:
5. Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, produced a comparative chart of the proposals submitted by the third respondent, Mumbai Travel Retail Limited, and the other company, Multistar Metal Trading LLC. He would submit that a perusal of the documents submitted by both companies shows that stamp papers bearing identical serial numbers were purchased and that the powers of attorney and other documents were prepared before the same notary. According to him, the documents were submitted merely to create an appearance of competition.
5.1 He would further submit that, in its second reply to the query raised by the second respondent, Multistar categorically admitted an error by its chartered accountant. Thus, the entire exercise was intended to award the contract mala fide to the third respondent without competition. The second respondent, without considering this serious aspect of submitting a bogus tender through a cartel, rejected the petitioner’s technical bid on flimsy, hyper-technical grounds.
5.2 Firstly, the power of attorney was prepared on 12.02.2026 and executed before the notary on 18.02.2026. This does not invalidate the power of attorney. Secondly, a power of attorney can be witnessed or notarised. In the present case, since notarisation was mandatory, the petitioner obtained one witness’s signature and had the document notarised. Therefore, it is a valid power of attorney under the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882, and as per Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
5.3. Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned Senior Counsel would rely on the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Madhucon Projects Limited v. National Highways Authority of India and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1248, and on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bansidhar Construction Private Limited v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others, (2024) 10 SCC 273. Learned Senior Counsel would rely on paragraphs 23 to 27 of the judgment to contend that the failure to obtain the signature of a second witness can, at best, be termed a hyper-technical defect and is merely a flimsy excuse for rejecting the petitioner’s bid.
5.4 Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the respondents exercised their power to call for clarifications, additional documents, and other particulars. They exercised that power on two different dates in respect of the petitioner and other participants in the tender. The request itself was made under the caption “Request for Shortfall Documents/Particulars”. Therefore, if the respondents considered that the signature of the power of attorney agent and the additional signature of a second witness were necessary, they could have raised those requirements while issuing the query to the petitioner. Had they done so, they could have obtained the necessary signatures and rectified the minor technical error.
5.5 Initially, the query concerned the date of the power of attorney. Thereafter, according to learned senior counsel, the respondents, in their zeal to award the contract to the third respondent and by adopting a microscopic approach to identify errors, identified yet another reason, namely, the absence of the attorney agent’s signature on the power of attorney, and rejected the technical bid.
5.6 Learned Senior Counsel would submit that gross injustice has been done to the petitioner. The petitioner’s bid is much lower than that of the selected bidder, and the public interest has been sacrificed in favour of the third respondent. Accordingly, he would submit that this Court should interfere.
5.7 Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents, would submit that these are nuanced technical bids from well-qualified commercial entities. The tender-floating authority is not expected to aid or advise any of the bidders.
5.8 The RFP clearly and categorically provides that a non-responsive bid will be rejected if any essential document required to be filed is not filed or is submitted in an improper format. A reading of the RFP shows that compliance with the prescribed form is what matters. The requirement is not merely to submit a power of attorney valid under general law, but to submit one in the Form III prescribed in the tender document. The prescribed form requires the signatures of two witnesses, notarisation and acceptance of the power by the power holder. When these requirements are not fulfilled, the power of attorney does not conform to the prescribed format. Once the power of attorney does not conform to Form III, the bid is liable to be rejected.
5.9 The Learned Additional Solicitor General of India would submit that the second respondent’s power to seek clarification under Clause 3.3.3 is to be exercised only where there is doubt about a document submitted by a bidder. This is not a case requiring additional particulars or clarification. The petitioner submitted its bid rashly and failed to exercise the degree of care expected of it, resulting in the rejection of its technical bid. If the tender-floating authority had permitted the petitioner to alter or furnish an additional Form-III after the cut-off date, that would have rendered the authority’s action illegal. On an earlier occasion, when the petitioner was the successful bidder in respect of Kolkata Airport and there was litigation, the very petitioner contended that no opportunity could be given to the other bidders.
5.10. The second respondent has not afforded any person an additional opportunity to replace the original document(s) submitted in support of the bid, nor can it grant such an opportunity to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner’s tender cannot withstand scrutiny under the RFP.
5.11 The law in this regard is well settled: the Court must take into account the tender-floating authority’s view on interpreting the RFP clauses and the validity of the forms. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the tender-floating authority’s decision on bid scrutiny. Once the scrutiny has been conducted in accordance with law, the mere fact that the petitioner could have been L1 is not the criterion. The purity of the tender process is also important. It would not have been in the public interest for the second respondent to permit the petitioner to correct the power of attorney and thereafter accept its bid.
5.12 The learned Additional Solicitor General of India would rely upon the following judgments in this regard and the relevant paragraphs are also mentioned in the following table:
S.No. CASE LAW RELEVANT PARA
1 Uflex Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2022) 1 SCC 165 7, 42 & 61
2 Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489
7 & 19
3 TANGEDCO v. CSEPDI-Trishe Consortium, (2017) 4 SCC 318 36
4 Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 156 SCC 272 19-21
5 Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2008) 16 SCC 215 20-22
6 Global Energy Ltd. v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2005) 4 SCC 435 10
7 Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India, (2005) 1 SCC 679 39 & 40
8 Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138 12
9 ICOMM Tele Ltd. v. Punjab State Water Supply & Sewerage Board, (2019) 4 SCC 401 28
10 Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & others (2012) 8 SCC 216 35
11 Brandmidas Hospitality & Aviation Services (P) Ltd. v. The Airport Authority of India & another (W.P.No.38845 of 2019) 31-34
12 Flemingo Dutyfree Shop Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India & another (W.A.No.10962 of 2026) 25
5.13. Mr P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, would submit that the allegations of favouritism are entirely unfounded. Merely because another participant also belonged to Maharashtra, the petitioner cannot make wild allegations of a cartel.
5.14 A bidder is expected to exercise a high degree of care in submitting its bid and documents. The third respondent cannot be subjected to unfair competition by allowing the petitioner to improve its technical bid and correct defective documents. The tender process does not permit such steps.
5.15 The law governing tenders and government contracts is strict, and the petitioner’s lapse cannot be treated as merely technical. If the power agent has not signed to signify acceptance of the power, he would be free to subsequently claim that he never accepted the power and that the petitioner can also make a claim and evade liability, thereby raising serious technical flaws in a valid contract to be entered into on behalf of the second respondent, the Airports Authority of India. Thus, the petitioner has failed to meet vital requirements, not merely a form.
5.16 Learned senior counsel would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Company Limited and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 451, particularly paragraph 24.
F. Analysis & Findings:
6. I have considered the rival submissions of both sides and perused the records of the case. Upon considering the judgments submitted by the learned Senior Counsel on either side, the legal position relevant to the issue at hand can be summarised as follows:
6.1 With reference to the construction of terms of tender or the meaning ascribed to them, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 has to give primacy to the RFP and to the manner in which the tender-floating authority construes it. Even if two views are possible, the Court cannot substitute its own view, and the view taken by the tender-floating authority should normally be accepted;
6.2 Quoting a lower price by an unsuccessful bidder whose technical bid has been rejected cannot be the sole criterion for condoning a lapse in the technical bid. Public interest encompasses not merely a lower price but also the purity and integrity of the tender process;
6.3 Bidders must strictly comply with all the conditions stipulated in the RFP. If a bid does not comply with those conditions, it is open to the tender-floating authority to reject it;
6.4 The authority is not obliged to invite bidders to correct their mistakes and is within its rights to reject a bid even where the lapse is a ‘mistake’ rather than a matter of ‘substantive qualification’;
6.5 Even where a clause in the RFP permits the authority to seek clarifications, additional documents, or other particulars, that power should be exercised only in matters of minor technical nature. It should not be exercised to improve or alter the bid, to make it a different bid, or to afford an unqualified bidder an opportunity to qualify itself. However, if the tender-floating authority chooses to give bidders an opportunity to correct ‘minor technical errors’ without discrimination, such action will not be illegal.
6.6 The Court will not come to the rescue of a bidder that has failed to submit its bid in a full and complete form, except where the Court finds that the rejection of the technical bid on account of a mere minor technical error amounts to a lame excuse for rejecting the tender, coupled with the fact that the exercise was against public interest.
6.7 Keeping the above principles in mind and reverting to the facts of the case, the power of attorney furnished by the petitioner conforms to Form III of the RFP insofar as its contents have been typed verbatim as prescribed in that form. It is transcribed on validly purchased stamp paper. The relevant column records the date as the 12th day of February, 2026. The Notary Public’s date stamp shows it was executed before him on 18.02.2026. At the bottom, after the executant’s signature on behalf of the petitioner company, there is a heading, “Witnesses”. One witness has signed against Serial No.1. Against Serial No.2, it reads “Notarized accepted”(which appears at the right-hand end of Form III). The document contains no second witness signature. The document is duly notarised, but the space below for the attorney’s signature has been left blank.
6.8 To illustrate how the petitioner submitted the power of attorney, it is useful to annex an image of the document as Annexure 1. The prescribed Form III is annexed to this judgment as Annexure 2.
Annexure-I:
Annexure-II:
6.9 Firstly, merely because the power of attorney is dated 12.02.2026 and was executed six days later, the document is not invalidated. Although the second respondent raised a query about the dates during consideration of the bid, this was neither taken as a ground for rejection nor argued before this Court to invalidate the power of attorney. Therefore, there is no difficulty with the date of the power of attorney and the date of its execution.
6.10. The first shortfall or mistake noted regarding the power of attorney is that, although it was required to be signed by two witnesses, only one witness signed it.
6.11 In this regard, Form III, annexed to this judgment as Annexure 2, contains the expression “(Notarised accepted)”, and the witnesses are listed in the left-hand column. Under Clause 2.14.6(iv) of the RFP, a duly notarised power of attorney for signing the proposal, as per Form III, must be submitted. Thus, the power of attorney must be notarised.
6.12 The “Notes” in Form III state that the mode of execution of the power of attorney must comply with any procedure laid down by applicable law and the charter documents of the executants. Where required, it should be executed under the common seal, affixed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The petitioner is an Indian company, and its power of attorney must therefore comply with Indian law.
6.13 In this regard, under the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 read with Section 85 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, there is no requirement that a power of attorney be witnessed by two witnesses. Further, where a power of attorney purports to have been executed before a Notary Public, there is a presumption that it was so executed and authenticated.
6.14 Therefore, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India’s contention that Form III requires the power of attorney to bear the signatures of two witnesses and to be notarised is factually incorrect. Form III provides for Witnesses 1 and 2 at the left-hand corner and mentions “Notarised accepted” at the right-hand corner. The note clarifies that the mode of execution must conform to the applicable law. Accordingly, under the prescribed format and the applicable law, the power of attorney is validly executed and authenticated if it is notarised. The first submission that the power of attorney does not conform to Form III because it lacks the signature of a second witness is, therefore, factually incorrect. On that ground, the petitioner’s power of attorney cannot be said to be inconsistent with Form III.
6.15 The second defect noted is that it does not include the signature of the power of attorney agent, signifying acceptance. The form provides for such a signature, and it would be in the second respondent’s best interests to insist upon it. The signature fortifies that the power of attorney agent has accepted the power and also serves as a specimen signature for the second respondent to act upon subsequent communications. In this regard, the power of attorney agent’s failure to affix his signature in Form III is certainly a mistake on the part of the petitioner.
6.16 In the present case, under Clause 3.3.3, the second respondent reserved its right to seek clarifications, additional information or documents from any bidder regarding its proposal. Such clarifications, additional information or documents must be provided within the time specified by the authority. Any request and the response thereto must be in writing. If the bidder fails to furnish the clarifications, additional information or documents within the prescribed time, the proposal is liable to be rejected.
6.17 It is true that the exercise of this power lies within the second respondent’s discretion. However, in the instant case, the second respondent exercised that power. While scrutinising the very Form III submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent raised a query regarding the date. Had the second respondent pointed out the absence of the specimen signature at that stage, the petitioner could have rectified it. Obtaining the specimen signature later would not amount to belatedly creating a power of attorney or submitting the power of attorney in Form III beyond the cut-off date. It would only rectify a minor technical error. It would neither alter nor improve the bid, nor confer any non-existent qualification upon the petitioner.
6.18 Considering the nature of the queries raised by the second respondent to the petitioner and the other participants in the factual background of this case, it is evident that the exercise had already been undertaken by the second respondent’s exercise of its power to seek clarifications. One error was pointed out during scrutiny, whereas the second respondent now relies on another minor technical error. The insistence/persistence on a curable and minor technical error that led to acceptance of the single-price bid of the third respondent Company, in the overall facts and circumstances, shows microscopic scrutiny to find fault, thus terming it a “lame excuse” to reject the petitioner’s technical bid. Considering the facts in total leads to the only conclusion that the petitioner is unfairly treated and that the entire exercise is not in tune with the public interest, thus warranting interference by this Court.
G. The Result:
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The impugned order dated 25.09.2026 published in https//etenders.gov.in portal by the second respondent with reference to Tender ID.No.2026-AAI-261228-1 dated 01.01.2026 shall stand quashed;
(ii) Consequently, the opening of the financial bid of the third respondent alone and the declaration of the third respondent as the successful bidder is declared illegal;
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent to the stage of opening of the technical bids;
(iv) Within one week from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order, the second respondent shall call upon the petitioner, and the petitioner’s power agent can make the specimen signature in Form-III;
(v) Upon the specimen signature being made, the petitioner’s technical bid shall also be considered and if it is found to be responsive and valid, the financial bids of the petitioner shall also be opened and considered vis-a-vis the third respondent in accordance with law and the award of contract shall be finalised;
(vi) Considering this as a special case, the concerned e-portal / the Authority in charge of the Management of the portal regarding the auction shall permit the respondents 1 & 2 once again to redo the exercise in accordance with the directions issued with this order; and
(vii) No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.10.2026
vji
Neutral citation : Yes
To
1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Civil Aviation,
C-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2. The Airport Director,
Airports Authority of India,
Chennai International Airport,
GST Road, Meenambakkam,
Chennai – 600 016.
Also having its Corporate / Principal Office at
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110 003.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vji
Pre-Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.39829 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.44778, 44779, 44781, 44782 of 2026
06.10.2026
