Delhi High Court · 2025-03-18
ADANI GLOBAL AIR CARGO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-15983/2024 2025:DHC:1689-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- ADANI GLOBAL AIR CARGO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
- Respondent
- UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 15983/2024 CM APPL. 67132/2024 CM APPL. 67133/2024 CM APPL. 67134/2024 ADANI GLOBAL AIR CARGO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ..... Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Ankit Rajgarhia, Mr. Shreyansh Rathi and Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC alongwith Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Shweta Bharti and Ms. Sonali Khanna, Advocates for GEM/R-2. Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Nippun Sharma and Mr. Raman Sablok, Advocates for R-3. Mrs. Vanita Bhargana, Ms. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Vishal Shrivastava and Ms. Phalguni Nigam, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Varun Kalra and Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocates for R-5. Mr. Siddharth Sethi, Ms. Shreya Sirear, Mr. Avinash Das and Mr. Kunal Saini, Advocates for R-6. Mr. Arnav Kumar, CGSC alongwith Ms. Aayushi Sharma and Mr. Ramesh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR W.P.(C) 15983/2024 Page 1 of 34 Signing Date:20.03.2025 15:18:15 Radhakrishnan, Deputy Director General, NIC, Chennai for UOI/R-7. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J. INTRODUCTION 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning the bidding process in respect of e-tender ID 2024_AAICL_205619_1 dated 21.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned e-tender in question) for receiving bids for development of New Cargo Terminal at Kolkata Airport on design, build, finance, operate and transfer basis, invited by respondent No.3 [ACLASCL]. 2. It is the petitioners’ case that they were excluded from participating in the